rigshare-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.1.3
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action or resource: searching, fetching details, listing categories, managing bookings and sessions, and owner onboarding. No overlapping purposes.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'rigshare_verb_noun' (e.g., create_booking, search_equipment). Uniform verb and noun styles throughout.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools cover the essential operations of a rental marketplace without bloat. The scope is well-defined and each tool serves a clear function.
Completeness4/5
Core workflows (search, view, book, check status) are covered. Missing update/cancel booking or payment details, but these are minor gaps for the primary use case.
Average 4.3/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 13 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions authentication requirements (API key, scope) and the fields returned. However, it does not detail pagination behavior, default sorting, rate limits, or response size limits, leaving some gaps.
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 two concise sentences that front-load the critical requirement (API key and scope). Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
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 output schema, the description should fully explain the response. It lists fields but omits details on pagination, default sorting, how to retrieve all bookings, or any example. The input schema defaults are present but not explained, leaving the tool contextually incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only 33% of schema parameters have descriptions (status has a description; limit and page lack any). The description does not add extra meaning to these parameters beyond their schema definitions, failing to compensate for the low coverage.
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 it returns the authenticated user's bookings with specific fields (equipment, dates, status, totals). It distinguishes from siblings like 'rigshare_create_booking' and 'rigshare_search_equipment' by focusing on listing existing bookings for the user.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly recommends using this tool to check existing rentals before creating a new one or to track a confirmation code. It also mentions the API key requirement and scope, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.
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?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. Only states it 'fetches' data, which implies read-only, but does not disclose permissions, rate limits, error handling, or side effects. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. First sentence states action and identifier, second lists returned data. Highly efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (single param, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, required input, and return contents completely. No gaps for a straightforward fetch operation.
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?
Only one parameter 'id' with schema description 'Equipment UUID (obtained from search_equipment results).' The description adds valuable context on the UUID's source, beyond the schema's format hint. Schema coverage is 100%.
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?
Clearly states verb 'Fetch' and resource 'single RIGShare equipment listing by its UUID', with a detailed list of returned data (specs, pricing, owner, images, booking URL). Differentiates from sibling tools like search_equipment or create_booking.
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?
Implies use when an equipment UUID is known from search_equipment, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool guidance. No mention of prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses important behaviors: server computes prices (ignoring client hints), enforces identity verification, security deposit hold, and budget cap. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden, and it does so well.
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?
Concise paragraph with front-loaded requirement. Each sentence adds unique information; no redundancy. Slightly dense but effective.
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?
Covers auth, return value, idempotency, constraints, and follow-up action. Lacks error scenarios, but for a creation tool with no output schema, provides solid contextual 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds value by explaining server-side pricing and providing context for pickup_type and idempotency_key behavior, enhancing understanding beyond schema.
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?
Clearly states it creates a booking for the authenticated user, with prerequisite API key and scope. Distinguishes from siblings by noting follow-up use of rigshare_list_my_bookings.
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?
Provides context on server-side pricing and idempotency, and suggests post-usage check, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (other booking tools are not creation-related).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses required authentication (API key, scope) and lists returned fields (status, GPU, compute hours, cost). Implies read-only operation. Does not mention pagination or rate limits, but covers key behavioral aspects for a list tool.
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?
Two sentences: first states requirement and core function, second gives usage advice. No wasted words, front-loaded with critical info.
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?
Describes key return fields (status, GPU, compute hours, cost), compensating for lack of output schema. Omits pagination or response structure details, but adequate for a list tool with optional filters. Could improve by explaining parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 2 optional parameters (booking_id, status) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain these parameters, leaving the agent uninformed about filtering capabilities. The schema itself provides enum values for status, but the description adds no contextual meaning.
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 the tool lists the authenticated user's remote sessions with specific fields (status, GPU allocation, compute hours, cost). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'rigshare_list_my_bookings' by targeting sessions instead of bookings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use before starting a new session to check if one is already active.' Also notes required API key and scope (sessions:read), which serves as a prerequisite. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but sufficient for typical use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, but description discloses it returns categories with active listings, counts, and descriptions. Additional behaviors (like no pagination) are implied by zero parameters.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with action, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, result content, and usage context. No missing details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has no parameters and 100% coverage. Description confirms no filters, adding no confusion.
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 the tool returns all equipment categories with active listings, including counts and descriptions, and provides a use case. No ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says it's useful for narrowing a search or discovering what's available, indicating when to use it. No explicit alternatives, but siblings don't overlap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description effectively covers behavioral traits: it returns only active listings, supports pagination, and notes that category overrides division filter. It gives division examples and filter semantics, fully compensating for the lack of annotations.
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 extremely concise: two main sentences plus a third for usage guidance. It is front-loaded with purpose and example queries, with no redundant information.
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 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides solid context: divisions, example queries, sibling tool guidance, and category usage. It could mention pagination specifics or default return fields, but what's present is sufficient for effective use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 75% (9 of 12 parameters documented). The description adds value by explaining divisions, citing example queries, and clarifying that category overrides division. It also directs users to rigshare_list_categories for valid category codes, aiding parameter selection.
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 the tool searches a rental equipment marketplace by filters, returning paginated active listings across two divisions. It provides concrete example queries and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool for owner onboarding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly tells when to use this tool (searching for rentals) and when to use the alternative rigshare_get_owner_onboarding. It also references rigshare_list_categories for discovering category codes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is a read operation (returns pitch, commissions, etc.), is unauthenticated, and safe to call. No contradictions or hidden behaviors.
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?
Four sentences efficiently convey purpose, usage, and parameters. Front-loaded with key action and resource. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only onboarding tool with no output schema, description covers return content (commission rates, signup URL, etc.), use cases, and parameter roles. Complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining how equipment_type tailors the response per category and that division_hint can be omitted if unsure, providing guidance beyond schema.
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?
Description clearly states it returns the full RIGShare pitch and step-by-step process for equipment owners. Distinguishes from sibling tools (search, booking, etc.) by focusing on owner onboarding, not general marketplace functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to call: whenever a user mentions they own equipment, or when a search returns no matches. Also notes it is unauthenticated and always safe to call, providing clear context for use.
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:

[![rigshare-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/RPER2001/rigshare-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/RPER2001/rigshare-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![rigshare-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/RPER2001/rigshare-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/RPER2001/rigshare-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/RPER2001/rigshare-mcp'

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