CompText MCP

by ProfRandom92

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: contract checking, GitHub packaging, Hugging Face export, context packing, replay digest, Rust audit, and status. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'comptext_' prefix followed by descriptive snake_case names (e.g., comptext_contract_check, comptext_status). The pattern is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the count is well within the ideal range (3-15). Each tool serves a clear function without excess or deficiency for the server's apparent scope.
Completeness4/5
The tools cover core workflows: contract checks, exports, context packing, digests, audits, and status. Minor gaps might exist (e.g., no tool for clearing or resetting state), but the set is largely complete for typical usage.
Average 3/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 30 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions deterministic behavior and sha256 hashes, but fails to disclose whether the tool is idempotent, has side effects (e.g., file creation), or requires specific permissions. Mutation intent is implied but not explicitly clarified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, but it sacrifices information for brevity. Parameter details are missing, making it less useful despite being concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having only one parameter and an output schema (unknown content), the description fails to explain how 'max_bytes' affects the context pack (e.g., truncation behavior). For a simple tool, this gap is significant.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'max_bytes' (optional, default 250KB) is entirely undocumented in the description. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description provides no meaning beyond the schema itself. The parameter's purpose, effect, and acceptable values are absent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a 'deterministic context pack' with 'stable file order and sha256 hashes,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'comptext_contract_check' or 'comptext_github_pack'. However, the term 'context pack' may be domain-specific and could be clearer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., when a non-deterministic pack is acceptable). No mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions 'deterministic replay/evidence digest', without explaining what this means, whether the tool modifies state, requires auth, or has side effects. The term 'deterministic' hints at reproducibility but is not elaborated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but omits critical details. While it is front-loaded, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. 3 reflects adequacy with clear gaps.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool has an output schema (not shown), the description does not clarify return values. For a simple tool, more context is needed about what the digest contains and how 'deterministic' applies. Current text is insufficient for confident invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'max_bytes'. The description does not explain its purpose or effect, leaving the agent to guess. Baseline for low coverage requires compensation, but none is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('deterministic replay/evidence digest') for the current workspace. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like comptext_pack_context or comptext_status, which could also relate to workspace contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description lacks context about typical use cases or when alternatives are better.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states 'safe read-only', disclosing non-destructiveness. However, no annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It does not detail what checks are performed, error behavior, or prerequisites, leaving gaps in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is too brief to be fully useful. It sacrifices informativeness for brevity, resulting in a structure that could be expanded with key details while remaining concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of three parameters and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the tool's role within the sibling context, the meaning of parameters, or expected outputs. The tool's complexity demands more context for effective agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema itself provides no descriptions for the three boolean parameters (check, clippy, tests_no_run). The tool description fails to explain any parameter semantics, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Run safe read-only Rust checks', which clearly identifies a specific verb (run), resource (Rust checks), and a key trait (read-only). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on contracts, packaging, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like comptext_contract_check or comptext_github_pack. The description implies usage for Rust auditing but lacks explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'check', implying a read-only operation, but does not specify whether it has side effects, requires authentication, or has rate limits. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no fluff. It is appropriately concise for a zero-parameter tool, though slightly more context could be added without bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks details on what the check returns or what 'local safety contracts' are, but the output schema likely provides the structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks local safety contracts for OpenCode usage, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like comptext_status that likely provide general status rather than contract checking.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of typical scenarios, prerequisites, or context for using the check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Return ... status' without indicating whether it is a read-only operation, if it fetches data, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that likely performs checks.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no wasted words, directly states what the tool returns. Appropriate length and structure for a simple status tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and existence of output schema, description lists components returned but lacks behavioral context (e.g., is it a local check, network-dependent?). Adequate but could be more complete by mentioning read-only nature or performance characteristics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist in schema (0 params), and schema coverage is 100% (empty). Baseline for 0 params is 4, and description adds nothing needed about parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it returns status of multiple components (CompText, Rust, Cargo, Git, workspace), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on contract checks, packing, audits, etc. However, it could be more specific about what 'status' entails (e.g., version info, health indicators).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites. The description implies it's for checking status but provides no context on scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description provides one behavioral trait (no network calls). It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or what side effects occur. This is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and an output schema (not provided), the description gives essential information (action, outcome, key constraint). However, it could clarify what a 'summary pack' contains relative to sibling tools like comptext_pack_context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable. Baseline score of 4 for no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (prepare) and resource (local GitHub summary pack) and adds a key constraint (without network calls). It is distinguishable from sibling tools based on the name and context, but lacks explicit definition of what a 'GitHub summary pack' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'without network calls' implies an offline preference but does not specify scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description mentions 'without upload or token usage,' suggesting read-only behavior and low risk, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as prerequisites, rate limits, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the essential purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has no parameters and a straightforward purpose, the description is mostly complete. An output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. However, a bit more context on what 'Hugging Face Space/Card export text' includes would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (no parameters to describe). According to the guidelines, the baseline score for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool returns Hugging Face Space/Card export text without requiring upload or token usage. This is a specific verb and resource, and sibling tools are unrelated, so there is no confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (when no upload/token is desired) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with alternatives. No explicit usage guidelines are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![comptext-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ProfRandom92/comptext-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ProfRandom92/comptext-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![comptext-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ProfRandom92/comptext-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ProfRandom92/comptext-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ProfRandom92/comptext-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server