Skip to main content
Glama
Thor-DraperJr

loop-improver-mcp

by Thor-DraperJr
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a distinct purpose: comparing repositories, installing/refreshing architecture, and recording insights. No overlap.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (compare_loops, improve_loop, record_loop_insight).

    Tool Count4/5

    3 tools is on the lower end but well-scoped for the narrow domain of loop architecture management. Not too few to be useless.

    Completeness4/5

    Covers the core workflow of comparing, improving, and recording insights. Minor gaps like deletion or listing are not essential for the stated purpose.

  • Average 2.5/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 11 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

  • Behavior2/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'compare', but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires permissions, or produces any side effects. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

    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 that immediately states the action. No redundant information or filler, making it concise and front-loaded.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness1/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given no output schema, no annotations, and only one parameter, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the comparison produces (report, list, diff?), how results are presented, or how to interpret them, leaving an agent without enough information to use the tool effectively.

    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 sole parameter 'repo_paths' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description says 'Compare repositories', which implies the parameter contains repository paths, but this is already suggested by the parameter name. No additional constraints or format details are provided.

    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 specifies a comparison action against a specific architecture, but the relationship between 'repositories' and 'loops' is unclear. The sibling tools 'improve_loop' and 'record_loop_insight' suggest a focus on loops, yet the description mentions repositories, creating ambiguity.

    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. Implied usage is for comparing repos against the loop architecture, but no exclusions or context for 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.

  • Behavior2/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies mutation ('install or refresh') but does not explain side effects, reversibility, or what 'refreshing' entails. The parameter overwrite_managed_files hints at overwriting, but the description offers no clarification.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness3/5

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

    The description is a single sentence, making it concise. However, it is under-specified, sacrificing clarity for brevity. A balanced length would better serve the agent.

    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?

    For a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the 'loop architecture', the installation process, or how this tool relates to siblings, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

    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?

    Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not mention repo_path or overwrite_managed_files at all, providing no value beyond the schema's names and defaults.

    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 states the verb 'Install or refresh' and the resource 'foundational loop architecture', clearly indicating the tool's action. It is somewhat distinguishable from siblings like compare_loops (comparison) and record_loop_insight (recording), though the exact nature of 'loop architecture' remains vague.

    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 its siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without context.

    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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it writes to a file, but omits details like whether it overwrites or appends, required permissions, or side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness3/5

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

    The description is concise at one sentence, but it is too vague for the tool's complexity. It is front-loaded with the basic purpose, but lacks necessary details, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness1/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention return values, parameter meanings, or behavioral expectations, leaving the agent without enough information to use the tool correctly.

    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?

    With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to the six parameters. It does not explain what each parameter (e.g., title, improved, repo_path) represents or how they relate to the 'current architecture insight'. The agent would be confused about how to fill in fields.

    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 'Write' and the resource 'current architecture insight' to a specific file path. This distinguishes the tool from siblings compare_loops and improve_loop, which likely have different purposes.

    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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool's name and purpose alone.

    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

loop-improver-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

loop-improver-mcp 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/Thor-DraperJr/loop-improver-mcp'

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