Skip to main content
Glama
TomPhillipsLabs

loopquest-mcp

by TomPhillipsLabs
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.2.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: one creates a review task, the other checks its status. No overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: create_review_task and get_task_status.

    Tool Count4/5

    With only 2 tools, the server is lightly scoped but still covers the core review workflow. The count is slightly low but acceptable for a focused utility.

    Completeness3/5

    The tool surface covers creation and status polling, but lacks operations like canceling or listing tasks, which could be needed in real workflows.

  • Average 4.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 4 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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions that gate mode blocks until human approval and that polling get_task_status is required. It also states the return fields. However, it does not discuss authentication requirements, rate limits, data persistence, or what happens on failure (e.g., if the human never reviews). These gaps reduce 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 three sentences: first states the primary purpose, second explains the two modes and their usage, third lists return values. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no redundant 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 complexity (13 parameters, conditional logic for modules) and no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview but lacks details on conditional parameter usage (e.g., when 'choices' is required), possible return status values, callback behavior, and error scenarios. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

    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 baseline is 3. The description adds some semantic value by explaining the modes and the relationship between 'claim' and 'content' for grounding, but most parameter meanings are already fully covered in the schema descriptions. No significant additional insight is provided beyond 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Send content to LoopQuest for a human to review.' It distinguishes two modes (gate and monitor) and specifies the return values (task id, status, expiry), making the purpose specific and actionable.

    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 explains when to use each mode: gate for blocking until human approval (with polling via get_task_status), and monitor for background review. It implicitly guides the agent away from using this tool if polling is not intended, and the sibling tool get_task_status is mentioned in context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or discuss alternatives for other review flows.

    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; the description discloses the tool performs a read operation ('check') to retrieve status and verdict. It is transparent about its non-destructive nature, though it does not detail other behavioral traits such as idempotency or rate limits.

    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 wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly addresses the tool's purpose.

    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?

    Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, 100% schema coverage), the description is complete. It provides sufficient information for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

    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 a clear description for the single parameter. The description adds meaning by specifying 'status and verdict' beyond the schema's 'task id' description, clarifying what is checked.

    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 checks status and verdict of a review task by id, using the specific verb 'check' and resource 'status and verdict'. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'create_review_task' which creates tasks.

    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 implies usage after creating a task (referenced in parameter description) but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. The context is clear for a simple status check.

    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

loopquest-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

loopquest-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/TomPhillipsLabs/loopquest-mcp'

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