Build MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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 targeting different aspects of the build process: checking configuration, installing dependencies, linting, building, and testing. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., check_package_json, install_dependencies). The naming is predictable and readable throughout the set.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, this server is well-scoped for a build automation domain. Each tool earns its place by covering essential build-related tasks without being overly sparse or bloated.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers core build workflow steps (check, install, lint, build, test), but lacks operations like cleanup, deployment, or version control integration, which are minor gaps that agents can work around for basic build tasks.
Average 2.8/5 across 5 of 5 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Install project dependencies' implies a write operation that modifies the project environment, but it doesn't disclose critical traits such as whether it requires network access, has side effects (e.g., modifying node_modules), potential errors (e.g., missing package.json), or output behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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 dependency installation tool (a mutation operation with potential side effects), the description is incomplete. No annotations or output schema exist to cover behavioral aspects, and the description fails to address critical context like prerequisites, error handling, or what 'install' entails. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly and safely.
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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('manager' and 'directory'), including enums and defaults. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact or typical use cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Install project dependencies' clearly states the verb ('Install') and resource ('project dependencies'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'install' entails (e.g., installing from package.json) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'check_package_json' or 'run_build', which might involve similar contexts. This makes it vague but not tautological.
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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a package.json file), exclusions, or how it relates to siblings like 'run_build' (which might include dependency installation). Without any context for usage, it leaves the agent to infer based on the tool name alone.
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 action ('Run tests') but doesn't explain what happens during execution (e.g., output format, error handling, side effects like file changes, or performance implications). For a tool that executes commands, this lack of detail is a significant gap.
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 that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, 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 the complexity of running tests (which can involve execution, output, and potential side effects), the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, it fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., test results, exit codes) or behavioral traits. This leaves critical gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full context.
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 has 100% description coverage, fully documenting both parameters ('command' and 'directory') with examples and defaults. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, as it only mentions 'current directory' which is covered by the schema. With high schema coverage, 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Run tests in the current directory' clearly states the verb ('Run') and resource ('tests'), but it's vague about what type of tests or framework is involved. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'check_package_json' or 'run_build', which might also involve testing-related activities. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.
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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a test setup), exclusions, or how it differs from siblings like 'lint_code' or 'run_build'. Without such context, an agent might misuse it or overlook better options.
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 states 'Read and analyze' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what analysis is performed, whether it validates the file, what happens if the file is missing or invalid, or what the output format is. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 with just four words, front-loading the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there's no wasted text or redundancy.
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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that performs analysis. It doesn't explain what analysis is done, what the return values are, or how errors are handled. For a tool with 1 parameter but behavioral complexity implied by 'analyze', this leaves too many gaps.
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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'directory' with its type and default. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as path format constraints or analysis options, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 verb ('Read and analyze') and resource ('package.json file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'lint_code' or 'run_build' which might also interact with package.json files, 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. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over other tools like 'install_dependencies' or 'run_build' that might also read package.json, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Run linting') but doesn't explain what happens during execution (e.g., outputs linter warnings, may fail on errors), potential side effects (e.g., modifies files), or performance aspects (e.g., time-consuming). This leaves key behavioral traits unspecified.
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 action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary details.
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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with parameters. It doesn't cover what the tool returns (e.g., lint results, success/failure status) or behavioral nuances, which are critical for an AI agent to use it effectively. This gap makes it inadequate despite the concise structure.
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%, so the schema fully documents the parameters ('command' and 'directory') with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying linting occurs, which the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 verb ('Run') and resource ('linting on the codebase'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'run_build' or 'run_test', which might also involve code analysis, but it's specific enough to convey its function.
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 like 'check_package_json' or 'run_test'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., dependencies installed) or typical scenarios (e.g., pre-commit checks), leaving usage unclear.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe execution behavior (e.g., whether it runs synchronously/asynchronously, error handling, output format, or side effects like file system changes). For a command execution tool, this leaves 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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 executing build commands (which can have side effects, require specific environments, or produce outputs) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, error conditions, or what the agent should expect after invocation.
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 both parameters well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying execution context, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('run build command') and context ('in the current directory'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'run_test' or 'check_package_json', which might also involve command execution in similar contexts.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether dependencies must be installed first), when to choose this over sibling tools like 'run_test', or any exclusions (e.g., not for production builds).
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcptest MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/TeodorTrotea/mcptest/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/TeodorTrotea/mcptest)

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/TeodorTrotea/mcptest'

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