Dynamis

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the DYNAMIS framework: auditing, searching doctrine, benchmarks, gaps, skill selection, bias, and attribution. No two tools have overlapping purposes, making selection unambiguous.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools use Spanish snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., auditar_cluster, buscar_doctrina), but 'get_benchmark' mixes English, 'sesgo_cluster' is noun_noun, and 'que_skill_aplica' is a question phrase. The pattern is inconsistent across the set.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server covers a well-scoped domain without being too sparse or overloaded. Each tool addresses a necessary function for interacting with the DYNAMIS knowledge system.
Completeness4/5
The set provides reasonable coverage for querying and auditing the framework, including gaps and bias. Minor omissions like a tool to list all clusters or expert details exist, but core workflows are supported.
Average 3.9/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 7 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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool preserves markers indicating dirty transcriptions and advises verification, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not mention authorization, rate limits, or return format.
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?
Extremely concise: two sentences, 30 words, no redundancy. Front-loaded with the main action and includes a critical warning efficiently.
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 hints at return contents (benchmarks with possible markers) but does not explain structure or values. Adequate for a simple retrieval tool but could be more comprehensive.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying default behavior for cluster ('o de todos si no se especifica'), but the filtering by metric is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 it returns benchmarks of a cluster or all clusters if unspecified, with optional metric filtering. It specifies the resource and action but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, though the action is distinct.
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?
Describes when to use (getting benchmarks, specifying cluster or all) and optional filtering, but no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. The warning about dirty markers provides some usage context.
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 must carry the full burden. It discloses the search scope and return type, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or behavior when no results are found. For a read-oriented search tool, it is adequate but minimal.
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 wasted words. The first sentence states the core action and scope, the second adds filtering and return type. Front-loaded and efficient.
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?
The description says it returns pasajes relevantes con atribucion, but does not specify structure, max results, pagination, or error handling. Given no output schema, this is minimally sufficient for a search tool but lacks depth for complete agent decision-making.
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 coverage is 100% with all three parameters described. The description adds that cluster filtering uses letters A-I, but the schema explicitly lists letters excluding B, so the description is slightly inaccurate. This introduces potential confusion for agents.
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 in 66 fichas and 8 sintesis of DYNAMIS by keyword, with optional filters for expert or cluster. It mentions returning relevant passages with attribution, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools which focus on auditing, benchmarking, gaps, etc.
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 usage for keyword searching with optional filters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or context for when to prefer siblings.
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?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool returns two values (bias and confidence) and adds behavioral context via the interpretation rule. No destructive actions mentioned, but the tool appears read-only.
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 concise (two sentences plus a rule) and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value, though the rule could be integrated more efficiently.
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 no output schema, the description explains return values (bias percentage and confidence reading) and provides context for interpretation. Sufficient for the tool's simple use case.
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 schema already describes the single parameter 'cluster' with allowed values. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond its return values, so baseline 3 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 clearly states the tool returns the 'Vinícius bias' (percentage of its tokens) and confidence reading, with specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'auditar_cluster' by focusing on bias metric.
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 rule for interpreting high percentages (treat as hypothesis) and specific guidance for clusters G/H/I (cross-check). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, leaving usage context implied.
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 adds behavioral context by stating the DYNAMIS rule for resource prioritization (close ★ first, then ◇) and indicates the tool is used for ongoing processes. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, and there are no annotations to compensate. Given the lack of annotations, the description should more clearly disclose safety characteristics.
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 concise at three sentences, front-loading the key output (checklist) and rule, then ending with the use case. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, an important behavioral rule, and the use case. It does not describe the exact return format beyond the symbols, but the separation into ★ and ◇ gives sufficient insight. Some examples of usage or error conditions could improve completeness, but it is mostly adequate.
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 covers 100% of the parameter (cluster) with a description listing valid letters. The tool description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 an audit checklist of a cluster, separated into real consensuses (★) and unique voices (◇). This specific verb and resource, combined with the unique output format, effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_benchmark or listar_huecos.
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 states the tool is for auditing a launch/closure in progress ("Usalo para auditar un lanzamiento/cierre en curso"). While it does not exclude alternatives, this provides clear context for when to use it, which is adequate given the explicit use case.
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 bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a skill and cluster, but does not mention whether it has side effects, modifies state, or requires specific permissions. It implies a read-only operation but lacks explicit behavioral details.
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 consists of two concise sentences. The first states the core purpose, and the second provides usage guidance with emphasis ('PRIMERO'). No superfluous 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 the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does and when to use it. It could mention the output format more explicitly, but the statement that it returns 'que skill DYNAMIS invocar y el cluster fuente' is sufficient.
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 single parameter 'problema' is described in the schema with 'Descripcion del problema u objetivo'. The tool description adds that it uses the problem to return a skill and cluster, but does not add further semantics beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 which DYNAMIS skill to invoke and the source cluster given a problem. It uses a specific verb 'devuelve' (returns) and distinguishes itself from siblings by being a meta-index 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 explicitly says 'Usalo PRIMERO cuando no sepas que skill aplica' (Use it FIRST when you don't know which skill applies), providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly list alternatives but implies its role as a router.
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. It implies a read operation (listing gaps) but does not confirm side effects or permissions. The description does not contradict any annotations (none exist).
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 short sentences with no redundancy. Every part earns its place: purpose and usage guidance are 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 simple parameter (one optional string) and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, and the parameter behavior.
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 schema has 100% coverage for the single 'cluster' parameter with a description. The tool description adds value by clarifying that omitting the parameter lists all clusters ('o de todos'), which is not in 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 it lists known gaps of a cluster (or all), specifying 'lo que DYNAMIS NO cubre y la fuente externa asignada'. This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from siblings like buscar_doctrina (search doctrine).
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 says 'Usalo antes de buscar doctrina fuera del corpus y para saber qué documentar en OPERADOR.md', providing clear context for when to use it. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is useful.
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 full burden. It states the output (valid/invalid + source list) and context, but does not disclose read-only nature, authorization needs, or side effects. It 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?
Two concise sentences with a key front-loaded term ('Anti-fantasma'). Every word adds value; no redundancy.
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 simple verification tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains input purpose and output format. It is 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.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context about the 'anti-fantasma' purpose and the source experts check, providing 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 verifies if an expert is in the source experts of a cluster before citing, and returns validity plus the source list. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like auditar_cluster or buscar_doctrina.
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 before citing an expert ('anti-fantasma'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.
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:

[![Dynamis-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Santiagociroc11/Dynamis-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Santiagociroc11/Dynamis-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Dynamis-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Santiagociroc11/Dynamis-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Santiagociroc11/Dynamis-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/Santiagociroc11/Dynamis-mcp'

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