Skip to main content
Glama
Touseef-ahmad

nestjs-langgraph-mcp

by Touseef-ahmad
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation3/5

    Health and list_agents are clear, but main_agent and run_agent overlap: both execute agents, with main_agent claiming to handle any request and run_agent offering provider/model selection. This could cause confusion about which to use.

    Naming Consistency2/5

    Tool names mix conventions: 'health' is a noun, 'list_agents' and 'run_agent' are verb_noun, 'main_agent' is adjective_noun. Verbs are not consistently used, leading to an incoherent pattern.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 4 tools, the server feels thin for the advertised capabilities (employee data, analytics, reporting, approval). The count is borderline but not extremely low for an agent-centric design.

    Completeness2/5

    The server lists numerous capabilities (e.g., list employees, engagement scores) but lacks dedicated tools for them—all are funneled through main_agent. This creates a gap where agents cannot directly perform specific operations.

  • Average 3.6/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.

    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

  • 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 disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'runs', which implies execution, but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or return behavior.

    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 no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

    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 an execution tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain what 'running' entails, what the return value is, or any prerequisites.

    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 all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'optional provider/model selection', so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

    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 'runs' and the resource 'LangGraph-orchestrated NestJS agent', and mentions optional provider/model selection. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'main_agent', which may have similar functionality.

    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 vs siblings like 'main_agent' or when to avoid it. The description only states optional customization but lacks use-case 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?

    With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'returns information', implying a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authorization requirements, performance characteristics, or whether the data is real-time.

    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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource.

    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?

    For a simple listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details about the return format, potential errors, or availability. Competing completeness would benefit from stating what 'information' includes (e.g., names, descriptions).

    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 zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter-level info, and 'all available agents and their tools' provides sufficient semantics for the no-parameter tool.

    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 ('returns') and resource ('information about all available agents and their tools'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'health', 'main_agent', and 'run_agent' which are not listing operations.

    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 only states what it does, with no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or conditions for selecting this over siblings.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists capabilities but offers no details on behavioral traits like error handling, delegation logic, or rate limits. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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

    Conciseness4/5

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

    The description is well-structured with bullet points and front-loaded purpose. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value; could be tightened but is still effective.

    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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lists capabilities adequately. However, it could be more complete by clarifying behavioral boundaries or expected outcomes for the 'handle any request' claim.

    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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'prompt' described as 'The user request to process.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline 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?

    The description clearly states the tool as the main orchestration agent that handles any request by leveraging all available tools, and lists specific capabilities. It distinguishes from siblings like health and list_agents by positioning itself as the primary interface.

    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 states 'Use this as the primary interface for all requests,' giving clear guidance on when to use. However, it does not mention when not to use or refer to alternatives among siblings.

    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 provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosure. It states that the tool returns server status and model configuration, which are the key behaviors. It does not specify idempotency, but the absence of parameters and the read-like nature make it relatively transparent.

    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 redundant information. It front-loads the purpose and is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

    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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough to understand its purpose. It could optionally mention that it is safe to call repeatedly, but the current description is adequate.

    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?

    There are no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable for a parameterless tool. 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?

    The description uses specific verb 'returns' and clearly identifies the resources: server status and default model configuration. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_agents, main_agent, and run_agent, which all relate to agents, not server health.

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

    Usage Guidelines3/5

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

    The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, since sibling tools are unrelated (agent-focused), the usage context is implied: use for server health checks. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are mentioned.

    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

experimental-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

experimental-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/Touseef-ahmad/experimental-mcp'

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