maldives-gazette-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.2.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool clearly targets either the Gazette or Iulaan domain with a distinct action (status, categories, search, get, etc.). No two tools appear to perform the same operation on the same resource, making misselection unlikely.
Naming Consistency3/5
Tool names mix noun-verb and verb-noun patterns (e.g., gazette_categories vs search_gazette), and the prefix/suffix placement is inconsistent across the two domains. All names are readable and the verb is clear, but the convention is not uniform.
Tool Count5/5
With 10 tools covering two related but distinct document types, the count is well-balanced for the server's purpose. Each tool serves a specific function and none feel redundant.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive read-only coverage: status checking, category listing, searching, fetching individual items, browsing, and reading attachments. Users can perform all necessary queries without notable gaps.
Average 3/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 1.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 17 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
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'public' but does not disclose return format, pagination, error behavior, or whether this is a listing operation. There is essentially no behavioral information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. A single vague sentence does not earn its place because it fails to provide necessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what a 'Gazette path' is, how max_results behaves, or what the API returns.
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% and the description does not explain the 'path' or 'max_results' parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the raw parameter names, which are insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Browse') and names a resource ('public Gazette path'), but 'Gazette path' is vague and doesn't clarify what browsing entails. It does not meaningfully distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_gazette' or 'search_gazette'.
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 such as search_gazette or get_gazette. The description implies a browsing action but gives no context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Read one Gazette record' with no mention of error handling, authentication, rate limits, or return format. The verb 'read' implies non-mutating, but no additional behavioral traits are disclosed.
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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and object. It is not overly verbose, but it is under-specified, which prevents a perfect score. It is efficient, though minimal.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It does not explain how to use the parameter, what the response contains, or when to prefer this over sibling tools. The context is incomplete for an agent to invoke it confidently.
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 input schema has one parameter (url_or_id) with zero description coverage. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify accepted formats (e.g., URL vs ID), whether the ID is numeric or string, or provide examples. The description adds no value beyond the schema field name.
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 ('Read') and the resource ('one Gazette record'), which distinguishes it from search/browse tools. However, it does not explicitly mention that it fetches by URL or ID, which is only implied by the parameter name.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_gazette or browse_gazette. The intended context (e.g., 'use when you have a specific URL or ID') is only implied, not stated.
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool searches public Gazette records, but does not indicate whether it is read-only, what results are returned, or any limitations. This is a significant gap for a search tool.
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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it is under-specified, which affects completeness rather than conciseness. The length is acceptable, but it lacks essential details.
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?
For a tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is inadequate. It lacks parameter semantics, usage guidelines, and return value expectations, making it insufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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%, and the description gives no information about the 'query' or 'max_results' parameters. Agents receive no guidance on parameter formats, defaults, or usage constraints, making correct invocation difficult.
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 uses a specific verb 'Search' and a clear resource 'public Gazette records', which distinguishes it from siblings like get_gazette and browse_gazette. However, it does not specify the exact scope or filtering behavior, so it is not fully precise.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use search_gazette compared to alternatives such as browse_gazette or search_iulaan. There are no usage contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.
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 carries the full burden, but it only mentions extracting text from a file. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, any required permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or limitations on file size or type variants. The lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.
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 concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any redundant wording or filler. Every word adds value.
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?
For a tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain what the extracted text looks like, how the output is returned, or under what circumstances this tool should be preferred over other Iulaan utilities. The agent is left with incomplete information to make effective use of the tool.
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 its two parameters, and the description does not mention them at all. The 'max_chars' parameter is completely unexplained, leaving the agent without any semantic understanding of how to set it or what it controls.
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's function: extracting text from an official Iulaan PDF or DOCX attachment. This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_iulaan or get_iulaan, which focus on other aspects of Iulaan records.
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 the sibling tools. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description only states what it does, not the context in which it should be invoked.
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 carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states a simple action ('show') with no details about the output format (e.g., list vs. single result), determinism, limitations, or what 'standard' means. This is a minimal disclosure that leaves many behavioral aspects unexplored.
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, focused sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could have included a brief note about the output or usage context without bloating it, so it is concise but not maximally informative.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), so the description need not explain return values, but it lacks critical context. It does not mention how this tool relates to iulaan searching, when to use it, or what the variants are used for. Given the sibling tools, the description is incomplete for an agent to confidently select and invoke this tool appropriately.
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?
The input schema only defines a required string 'query' with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description adds some meaning by specifying that the query is an 'English phrase,' which implies the input is a natural language phrase rather than arbitrary text. However, it doesn't clarify expected phrasing or any format constraints, so it only partially compensates for the schema's silence.
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's function: 'Show standard Dhivehi Thaana query variants for an English phrase.' It uses a specific verb ('show') and identifies the resource (Dhivehi Thaana query variants) and input (English phrase). While it doesn't elaborate on what 'variants' entails, it is not a tautology and distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on searching/retrieving gazette or iulaan records.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it could be a preprocessing step for iulaan searches, nor does it note any exclusions or alternatives. The intended use case is only implied by the tool name and sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer context.
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 must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only check but does not disclose the output format, failure behavior (e.g., exceptions, false returns), or any side effects. The agent is left without critical information.
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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool.
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 being simple, the tool has no output schema and no annotations. The description does not specify what the agent should expect in return (e.g., boolean, status message) or how to interpret the result, making it incomplete for confident invocation.
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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter behavior, and the schema is fully covered (empty object).
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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('public Gazette'), and the term 'reachability' distinguishes this from sibling tools that fetch or search content. However, it doesn't clarify what 'reachability' means in terms of actual behavior or response, leaving moderate ambiguity.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_gazette or browse_gazette. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer use cases.
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 responsibility. It indicates a read operation but gives no details about return format, authentication, rate limits, error handling, or what 'attachment links' entails beyond the phrase.
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?
A single sentence with no redundancy, front-loading the verb and resource. It is concise and to the point, earning its place.
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?
For a simple single-parameter read tool, the description captures the core function, but it omits usage context, parameter semantics, and output details. It is minimally viable but lacks depth for a fully self-sufficient description.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the 'url_or_id' parameter beyond its self-explanatory name, nor does it provide format, examples, or whether it accepts URL or ID. The description adds no meaning beyond the 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?
The description clearly states the tool reads one Iulaan posting and its attachment links, using a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('Iulaan posting'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_iulaan (search) and read_iulaan_attachment (individual attachments), as it explicitly covers the posting plus attachment links.
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 such as search_iulaan or read_iulaan_attachment. The description lacks prerequisites, context, 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, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose return format, ordering, or whether empty categories are included. It adds no beyond-purpose behavioral context.
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, front-loaded, and contains no filler. For a 0-parameter list tool, this is appropriately concise and structured.
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?
With no output schema and sibling tools like browse_gazette and iulaan_categories, the description is minimal but understandable. It lacks guidance on return shape or how it relates to siblings, which is a clear gap, though the tool's simplicity limits the need.
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 accepts zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. No parameter explanations are needed; the baseline of 4 for 0-parameter tools applies.
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 'List Gazette categories' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Gazette categories'), and clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'iulaan_categories' by specifying Gazette. It directly states what the tool does.
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 browse_gazette or iulaan_categories. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints beyond the tool name.
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?
With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by explaining that English queries are expanded into Dhivehi variants, which is a non-obvious behavior. However, it does not disclose other traits like pagination, result format, or rate 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and a key behavior. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or redundancy.
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 tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain what the parameters do, what results look like, or any additional behavior beyond query expansion, making it inadequately complete for a tool of this complexity.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter-level detail. The only hint is that English queries are supported, implying the 'query' parameter accepts English, but the other six parameters are completely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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's function: 'Search public Iulaan announcements' – a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings like search_gazette by specifying 'Iulaan announcements' and mentions English-to-Dhivehi expansion, which is unique to this tool.
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 implies usage for searching public Iulaan announcements and notes that English queries are expanded, providing clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to choose this tool over siblings for Iulaan searching.
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, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not detail any pagination, sorting, or error behavior. For a simple listing tool, this minimal transparency is adequate but not rich.
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, short sentence that fully states the tool's purpose. No wasted words, and the content is appropriately sized for a simple parameterless list operation.
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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is sufficient to tell an agent what it does. It does not describe the return value format, but that may be inferred from the word 'categories' and sibling tool patterns. Complete enough for its low complexity.
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 zero parameters, so the schema is trivially covered (100%). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline of 4 for zero-param tools applies. No missing information here.
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 'List Iulaan categories.' uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('Iulaan categories'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'gazette_categories'. No ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 provides a clear context: use when you need a list of Iulaan categories. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like 'search_iulaan' or 'browse_gazette' for more complex needs. The usage is implied rather than explicit.
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:

[![maldives-gazette-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Rayyan011/maldives-gazette-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Rayyan011/maldives-gazette-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![maldives-gazette-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Rayyan011/maldives-gazette-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Rayyan011/maldives-gazette-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/Rayyan011/maldives-gazette-mcp'

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