mcp-research-collective

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
All tools have clearly distinct purposes: the four arithmetic operations are separate, and the four blackboard operations (set, get, query, dump) each serve unique functions. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency3/5
Arithmetic tools use single verbs (add, subtract, multiply, divide) while blackboard tools use a noun_verb pattern (blackboard_dump, blackboard_get, blackboard_query, blackboard_set). This inconsistency in naming convention across the server reduces coherence.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools covering two distinct subdomains (arithmetic and blackboard), the count feels well-scoped. Each tool serves a clear purpose without unnecessary duplication or bloat.
Completeness4/5
The arithmetic set is complete for basic operations. The blackboard tools are mostly complete but lack a delete/remove operation, which could be a gap for typical blackboard use cases. Minor gap.
Average 3.4/5 across 8 of 8 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
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are available, so the description completely bears the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool queries beliefs, implying a read operation, but does not reveal side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or any constraints like what happens if both pattern and tag are specified. The description is 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?
The description is a single, 14-word sentence. It is extremely concise and front-loads the action ('Query beliefs'). Every word contributes to the purpose. No unnecessary information.
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 the tool's relative simplicity (two optional parameters) and presence of an output schema (which presumably documents return values), the description is moderately complete. However, it fails to address the logical combination of pattern and tag (AND vs OR), which is a contextual gap. The description is adequate but not thorough.
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 has 0% description coverage for its two parameters. The description adds some meaning: 'pattern' is a regex applied to key or string value, and 'tag' is a tag to filter by. However, it does not fully clarify the regex format, the meaning of 'key or string value', or the logical relationship between pattern and tag (AND/OR ambiguity). It partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
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: query beliefs by regex pattern and/or tag. It specifies the resource (beliefs) and the action (query), and outlines the criteria (regex pattern on key or string value, tag). The tool is distinct from siblings like arithmetic operations and other blackboard actions, though it could explicitly differentiate from blackboard_get/dump.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain when to use blackboard_query instead of blackboard_get or blackboard_dump. There are no explicit context cues or exclusions provided.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns a dict with timestamp and provenance, which is helpful. However, it does not explain side effects like overwriting existing keys, nor does it describe parameter behavior (e.g., confidence, tags) beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the purpose, and the second describes the return value. There is no redundant or extraneous information.
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 (5 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter usage or the semantics of the belief storage, which is critical for correct invocation. The mention of the return dict is a minor plus but insufficient.
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 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no explanations for the five parameters (key, value, source, confidence, tags). An agent has no semantic understanding of what these parameters mean or how to use them beyond the schema structure.
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 uses the specific verb 'publish' and the noun phrase 'belief to the shared blackboard', which clearly identifies the action and resource. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like blackboard_get (retrieve) and arithmetic tools.
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 blackboard_get or blackboard_query. The description only states what the tool does, without indicating prerequisites or appropriate contexts.
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, and the description only says 'multiply two numbers' without disclosing any behavioral traits like overflow behavior, rounding, or error handling.
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 clear sentence, concise and to the point. Could be slightly improved by including parameter details, but it is not verbose.
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 simple arithmetic tool, the description is complete enough to understand its purpose. However, it lacks mention of return value or edge cases, but given the simplicity and presence of output schema, it is nearly adequate.
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 0%, so the description must add meaning. However, it only repeats 'multiply two numbers' which is already implied by the parameter names a and b, without adding any additional context about their meaning or constraints.
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 'Multiply two numbers' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add, divide, subtract.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., multiply vs add for repeated addition). The description only states what it does, not when to prefer it.
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?
The description discloses the basic behavior of adding two numbers, which is sufficient for such a simple operation. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it is clear and transparent.
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, consisting of a single sentence. Every word is purposeful, and there is no extraneous information.
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 arithmetic tool with an output schema, the description provides the essential information. However, it lacks guidance on edge cases, precision, or return value details, which could be beneficial.
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 description 'Sum two numbers.' does not add any meaning to the parameters a and b beyond the input schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it fails to elaborate on what the parameters represent.
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 'Sum two numbers.' clearly states the action (sum) and the resource (two numbers). It distinguishes this tool from sibling arithmetic operations like divide, multiply, and subtract.
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. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where addition is preferred.
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 full burden. It lacks details on number types, precision, overflow, or result handling, which are important for behavioral expectations.
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 with no unnecessary words. It is efficiently structured and front-loaded with the essential operation.
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 arithmetic operation, the description suffices, but it could be more complete by mentioning output format or handling edge cases, especially since an output schema exists.
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 description clarifies the roles of parameters a and b (a is the minuend, b is the subtrahend), but with 0% schema coverage, it does not compensate fully for the lack of parameter descriptions 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 'Subtract b from a' clearly specifies the verb (subtract) and the resource (two numbers), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add, multiply, and divide.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is implicitly understood from the tool name and statement. No exclusions or conditions are 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, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states that division raises an error if b equals zero, but omits details like return type, precision, or overflow behavior, leaving significant 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 exceptionally concise with two short sentences covering the core operation and key error condition. Every word is informative with no redundancy.
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 existence of an output schema (though not shown), the description is largely complete for a simple arithmetic tool. It covers the operation and main error, though it could briefly note that the result is a number.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameter roles. The phrase 'Divide a by b' explicitly indicates that 'a' is the dividend and 'b' is the divisor, adding critical order information not evident from the schema alone.
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 uses a specific verb 'Divide' and resources 'a' and 'b', clearly defining the operation. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add', 'subtract', and 'multiply' which perform different arithmetic operations.
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 only implies when to use (when division is needed) but provides no explicit context or alternatives. It does not mention when not to use or compare with related tools.
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 mentions 'non-expired', indicating that expired entries are excluded, which is a behavioral detail. However, with no annotations, it lacks disclosure of side effects, performance implications, or whether it's a snapshot. More context would improve 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 a single sentence with 6 words, very concise and directly to the point. No wasted words.
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 is minimal but covers the essential purpose. However, the tool has an output schema, and the description does not hint at the return format (e.g., JSON object). For a dump tool, specifying the output structure would enhance completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. Schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description is adequate.
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 full non-expired blackboard state. The verb 'Return' and resource 'full (non-expired) blackboard state' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like blackboard_get (single key) and blackboard_query (filtered), and from math tools.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like blackboard_get or blackboard_query. The description only states what it does, without explicitly advising when to use it or when not to.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two failure modes (absent or expired) and the return value. For a simple read tool, this is adequate.
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 sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, behavior, and return value. No unnecessary words.
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 (one parameter, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers the key aspects: operation, parameter role, and return value. Minor gaps on key semantics are not critical.
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 description does not add any detail beyond the schema regarding the `key` parameter format, constraints, or examples. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate.
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 a single belief by key, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like `blackboard_query` (likely multiple beliefs) and `blackboard_set` (write).
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 reading a single belief but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `blackboard_query`. It mentions return conditions but not context for selection.
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:

[![mcp-agent-blackboard MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/SiegKat/mcp-agent-blackboard/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/SiegKat/mcp-agent-blackboard)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-agent-blackboard MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/SiegKat/mcp-agent-blackboard/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/SiegKat/mcp-agent-blackboard)

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/SiegKat/mcp-agent-blackboard'

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