Skip to main content
Glama
Spacemandomains

TOP GUN GEO-Lens

by Spacemandomains
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation4/5

    Get_payment_info is clearly separate from the two audit tools. Geo_quick_check and audit_brand serve the same core purpose but are well-differentiated by cost and depth, reducing ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency2/5

    Naming is inconsistent: 'get_payment_info' uses verb_noun, 'geo_quick_check' uses a compound noun, and 'audit_brand' uses verb_noun. No clear pattern across tools.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 3 tools, the server feels minimal for a brand visibility service. While each tool has a clear purpose, the surface is thin for typical CRUD or lifecycle coverage.

    Completeness2/5

    The core audit functionality is covered, but there are obvious gaps: no tool to retrieve audit history, manage payments, or update user profile. The service likely requires repeated interactions, yet no persistence tools exist.

  • Average 4.2/5 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 is passing

  • 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?

    With no annotations, the description implies a read operation ('Get') but does not explicitly state idempotency, side effects, or rate limits. For a simple 0-param tool, this is adequate but could be improved.

    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, delivering the essential information 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?

    The tool has no parameters and no output schema, yet the description covers what the tool returns. It is mostly complete, though the exact format of payment URLs or wallet address is not specified.

    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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter info.

    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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'payment URLs and USDC wallet address for both audit tiers'. It is specific and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool retrieves.

    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 (geo_quick_check, audit_brand) or any prerequisites/context for invocation.

    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, description discloses cost ($1.50 USDC), payment flow (Stripe session ID or payment link), data sources, and result count. Does not cover error handling or side effects, but the tool is read-only and non-destructive, so the transparency 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.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    Two sentences: first defines purpose and output, second specifies cost and alternative. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or unnecessary words.

    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?

    Despite no output schema, the description fully enumerates return components (score range, label, citations, status, recommendations). Combined with 100% schema parameter coverage and only two parameters, the description provides complete context for an agent to understand tool behavior and expected results.

    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 description coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both 'query' and 'paymentToken' parameters. The tool description adds context about sources and results but does not provide additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already conveys. 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?

    Description clearly states the tool performs a 'Full brand visibility audit' specifying sources (Brave + Exa), number of results (10), and exact outputs (visibility score, label, citation URLs, index status, GEO recommendations). Distinct from sibling 'geo_quick_check' which is described as a quick snapshot.

    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?

    Explicitly mentions alternative 'geo_quick_check' for a cheaper quicker snapshot, providing clear context on when to use this full audit vs a lighter option. However, no additional guidance on when not to use this tool besides cost considerations.

    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 carries the full burden. It discloses return format (score, URLs, tips), scope (single-source, 5 results), cost ($0.05), and payment behavior (token optional, returns link if omitted). It lacks details on error handling or data freshness, but for a quick check tool the main behavioral traits are covered well.

    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 just two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every clause adds information (score, citations, tips, count, cost, alternative). No wasted words, easy to scan. Excellent conciseness.

    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 (2 params, no output schema), the description covers essential aspects: what it returns, cost, payment flow, and alternative. It could mention data sourcing or rate limiting but the completeness is adequate for a quick check tool. Minor gaps prevent a 5.

    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 both parameters described. The description adds value by explaining the paymentToken role (if omitted, returns payment link) and that query is for a brand check, reinforcing the schema. This extra context justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

    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 provides a 'quick brand visibility snapshot across LLM-indexed sources', noting it returns a score, top 3 citation URLs, and 2 tips. It distinguishes from sibling audit_brand by specifying that tool returns full citations, LLM index status, and 6 recommendations, making the purpose and differentiation very clear.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines5/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description explicitly tells when to use this tool (quick snapshot) vs. audit_brand (full analysis), including cost comparison. It also explains that omitting paymentToken returns a payment link, guiding the agent on how to handle payment. This provides clear context for usage and alternatives.

    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

top_gun_mcp_server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

top_gun_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/Spacemandomains/top_gun_mcp_server'

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