Skip to main content
Glama
SannketNikam

Demo MCP Server

by SannketNikam
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: add_expense creates new entries, list_expenses retrieves entries with filtering, and summarize provides aggregated analysis. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (add_expense, list_expenses, summarize), with 'summarize' being a verb-only form that still fits the action-oriented naming style. The naming is predictable and readable throughout.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 3 tools, this server is well-scoped for expense management, covering core operations: creation, retrieval, and summarization. Each tool earns its place without feeling thin or excessive for the domain.

    Completeness3/5

    The tools cover basic expense tracking (create, list, summarize), but there are notable gaps in lifecycle coverage, such as updating or deleting expenses. This could limit agents in handling modifications or corrections, though core workflows are supported.

  • Average 2.8/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 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

  • 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 states this is an 'Add' operation, implying a write/mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns an ID). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation 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?

    The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for conciseness.

    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 complexity of a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent poorly equipped to use this 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?

    The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no information about what each parameter means (e.g., format of 'date', units for 'amount', allowed 'category' values), failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

    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 ('Add a new expense entry') and the resource ('to the database'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_expenses' or 'summarize' beyond the basic verb difference, which prevents a perfect score.

    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 like 'list_expenses' or 'summarize'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as when an expense should be added versus when data should be listed or summarized, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

    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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('List') but doesn't address permissions, pagination, rate limits, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function and scope without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

    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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter usage, and return values, which are critical for a tool with two required parameters and potential complexity in expense data handling.

    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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'inclusive date range' which hints at the two parameters, but doesn't explain date formats, time zones, or validation rules. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema titles.

    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 ('List') and resource ('expense entries') with specific scope ('within an inclusive date range'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'summarize' which might also handle expense data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

    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 like 'add_expense' or 'summarize'. It mentions date range filtering but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts, leaving usage decisions to inference.

    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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool summarizes expenses but doesn't describe how (e.g., aggregation method, output format), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

    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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes key details (summarize, expenses, category, date range) without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

    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 complexity (summarization with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the summarization output, parameter details, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

    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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so parameters are undocumented. The description mentions 'category' and 'inclusive date range', which hints at the 'category', 'start_date', and 'end_date' parameters, but doesn't explain their semantics (e.g., date format, category values, whether category is optional). It adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names.

    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 purpose: 'Summarize expenses by category within an inclusive date range.' It specifies the verb ('summarize'), resource ('expenses'), and scope ('by category', 'within an inclusive date range'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_expenses' (which might list individual expenses rather than summarize them).

    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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'add_expense' or 'list_expenses', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate contexts for summarization versus listing. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

    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

test-remote-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

test-remote-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

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/SannketNikam/test-remote-mcp-server'

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