Skip to main content
Glama

Server Quality Checklist

83%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.
  • Latest release: v0.2.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Only one tool exists, so there is no risk of confusion. The tool's purpose is clear and unambiguous.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    With a single tool, there is no inconsistency. The name 'research' is a reasonable verb that describes the action.

    Tool Count4/5

    One tool for a tiny search server is slightly minimal but appropriate for the intended simplicity. The tool performs the entire search and answer generation pipeline.

    Completeness5/5

    The single tool covers the full workflow of searching, crawling, and returning a grounded answer, which is complete for the server's stated purpose. No obvious gaps.

  • Average 3.9/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

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

    • 1 of 2 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 73 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing
  • 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.

  • This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.

  • This server has been verified by its author.

  • 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 disclosure. It mentions searching and crawling but does not explain the nature of the 'grounded answer prompt,' limits, or authentication requirements. The behavioral description is minimal and leaves important aspects unclear.

    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 only two sentences and contains no fluff. The first sentence defines the tool's action, and the second explains the input. Every word serves a purpose, achieving maximal conciseness.

    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?

    With one parameter and an output schema available (from context), the description covers input adequately but is vague on output. It mentions a 'grounded answer prompt' without clarifying format or structure. For a simple tool, this is minimally viable but lacks 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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning by stating the only parameter is 'query' and advising to pass the user's question as-is. This goes beyond the bare schema and provides functional guidance. It could be improved by specifying expected input format 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 clearly states the tool searches the web, crawls pages, and returns a grounded answer. It specifies the verb and resource, making the function unmistakable. No sibling tools exist, so no differentiation is needed.

    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 instructs to 'pass the user's question as-is,' providing explicit usage guidance. Since there are no sibling tools, it does not need to exclude alternatives. The guidance is clear, but no context about when not to use is provided, missing a slight opportunity for completeness.

    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

TinySearch MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

TinySearch 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/TinySuiteHQ/TinySearch'

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