Looping Agent MCP

by ShreyasBidwai

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: check_done for verification, confirm for manager to set criteria, get_next_action for step retrieval, propose for goal definition, report_result for result reporting, and request_gate for permission. No overlap.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tool names follow a verb_noun pattern (check_done, get_next_action, report_result, request_gate), though confirm and propose are single verbs. The naming style is consistent with lowercase and underscores.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server covers the core interactions of a looping agent workflow (propose, confirm, get action, report, check done, request gate) without being excessive or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the essential lifecycle: goal proposal and criteria confirmation, action retrieval, result reporting with verification, done checking, and gate requests. Minor gap: no explicit tool for listing all criteria, but get_next_action provides failing criteria and check_done tests all.
Average 3.7/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 6 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?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool runs a verifier, returns specific states, and re-injects a standing order on failure. However, it does not mention potential side effects, authorization requirements, or whether the operation is idempotent, leaving some 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states the verb, second explains outcomes, third clarifies a key parameter. It is concise and front-loaded, though a bit dense.
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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core flow (report, verify, return) and explains 'proof', but lacks details on 'summary', the verifier's nature, and why an agent would choose this over siblings. Partially complete but with noticeable gaps.
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%. The description adds meaning for the 'proof' parameter by explaining it maps criterion_id to artifact path, but does not describe the required 'summary' parameter at all. The schema itself is minimal, so the description should compensate more.
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: the agent reports its actions, runs a verifier, and returns either 'FAIL+failing' or 'DONE'. It also explains the meaning of the 'proof' field. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'confirm' or 'propose', which may have overlapping functionality.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is used after an action is performed, but lacks context on prerequisites or when to avoid it. Sibling tools are listed but not contrasted.
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 carries full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a pending gate for manager approval, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not explain what happens after approval, potential side effects, or timeout/revocation behavior, leaving gaps in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the core action and purpose. There is no wasted or redundant text; every word contributes to understanding the tool's primary function.
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 and two parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and high-level behavior, but lacks parameter details and post-approval context. It is sufficient for basic understanding but incomplete for reliable agent invocation without further inference.
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. It provides examples for 'action' (deploy/migrate/delete/send) but not a full list or constraints. 'Reason' is not described at all. The added meaning is insufficient for an agent to correctly populate parameters without additional knowledge.
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 purpose: asking permission for irreversible actions like deploy/migrate/delete/send. It specifies that it sets a pending gate for manager approval, which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'confirm' or 'propose' that likely handle different kinds of confirmations.
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 irreversible actions requiring manager permission but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It lacks explicit alternative tool references, leaving the agent to infer context from examples.
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 carries the transparency burden. It discloses that DONE only comes from here and that it raises a merge gate on git projects, but does not detail side effects, required permissions, or what constitutes 'green'.
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 fluff. Every sentence provides key information: purpose and effect. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and consequence (raising a merge gate). However, it could be more complete by clarifying what 'DONE' signifies and typical usage scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.
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 is an 'Explicit verifier call' and the sole source of DONE. It differentiates from sibling 'report_result' by mentioning they share authority, but does not fully distinguish from other siblings like 'confirm' or 'propose'.
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 context (raising a merge gate on git projects when green) and mentions sibling 'report_result' for authority comparison, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to other 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?
Although no annotations are provided, the description discloses important behavioral traits: the tool may escalate immediately if too risky or can't define done. This adds transparency beyond the basic function.
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 the core purpose, no unnecessary words. Very concise and to the point.
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?
Covers the main purpose and escalation behavior, but lacks details on return format, meaning of terms like 'risk lane', and how the 'repo_context' parameter is used. Adequate but incomplete for a tool with no output schema.
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 description adds meaning to the 'goal' parameter (what the manager types) but does not mention 'repo_context' at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves a gap for one parameter.
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 the verb (propose) and resource (goal), and what it returns (risk lane + proposed criteria). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like check_done, confirm, etc., which have different actions.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage when a manager types a goal, but doesn't provide exclusions or mention when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 explains that edited_criteria replaces the list, patches existing items by id, and returns an error if malformed. However, it does not mention whether changes are persistent or what side effects occur (e.g., does 'confirm' modify state?). This lack of persistence info is a gap.
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 fairly concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds value, though some technical details could be slightly more compact. Overall, it earns its length.
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 only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is relatively complete. It covers input structure, behavior, and error handling. However, it lacks context about the broader workflow (e.g., what is the kickoff prompt? How does this integrate with siblings?).
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?
With schema coverage at 0%, the description fully explains the single parameter 'edited_criteria'. It details each item's structure (id, text, oracle_type, oracle), explains oracle_type values ('command', 'browser', 'manual'), and describes how matching works (patch vs. add new). This provides essential 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's purpose: 'Manager confirms the criteria, optionally REPLACING them... then returns the kickoff prompt.' It specifies the verb 'confirms' and the resource 'criteria'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'propose' (which suggests criteria) and 'request_gate' (which requests approval).
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 is for finalizing criteria after proposal, but it does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool vs. alternatives like 'propose' or 'check_done'. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.
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 key behaviors: enforces pacing and caps, returns goal and failures or special signals (STOP/ESCALATE/DONE). It does not detail side effects but is sufficient for a read-like 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with 'Agent calls this each turn', no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.
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 parameters or output schema, the description adequately covers the return types and basic behavior. It could elaborate on pacing/caps, but it's sufficient for a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline score of 4 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's purpose: 'Agent calls this each turn' to get the next action, returning goal, failures, or special stop signals. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying its role as the main loop driver.
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 'Agent calls this each turn', indicating it is the primary tool for turn-by-turn decision making. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear.
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:

[![AI_Loop_MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ShreyasBidwai/AI_Loop_MCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ShreyasBidwai/AI_Loop_MCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![AI_Loop_MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ShreyasBidwai/AI_Loop_MCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ShreyasBidwai/AI_Loop_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/ShreyasBidwai/AI_Loop_MCP'

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