Unleash MCP Server

Official

by Unleash

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.4.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool serves a unique and clearly defined purpose in the feature flag lifecycle (creation, evaluation, detection, state, listing, strategy, toggling, cleanup, wrapping), with no overlapping functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., cleanup_flag, create_flag, toggle_flag_environment), making predictions easy.
Tool Count5/5
With 11 tools, the server covers the full lifecycle of feature flag management without being bloated; each tool is justified and valuable.
Completeness4/5
Covers almost all aspects: evaluation, detection, creation, state, listing, rollout, toggling, strategy removal, code wrapping, and cleanup. Missing explicit flag deletion from the admin API, but cleanup may subsume that.
Average 4/5 across 11 of 11 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 5 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 8 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 6, 2026
- 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.
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 provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Fetch' without detailing side effects, permissions, rate limits, or output format. Lacks depth for a read operation.
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?
Single sentence, no redundant information, front-loaded key action and resource.
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?
No output schema, yet description only vaguely mentions 'metadata and environment strategies'. Missing details on return format, pagination, error handling, or data structure. Incomplete for a fetch operation.
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 descriptions cover all three parameters (100% coverage), so description adds minimal extra meaning. Mentions what is fetched but does not elaborate on parameter relationships.
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?
Description uses clear verb 'Fetch' and specifies resource 'feature flag metadata and environment strategies' from a known API, distinguishing it from sibling tools that create, delete, or toggle flags.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like evaluate_change or toggle_flag_environment. Context only implied by the read verb, but not stated.
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 only states 'Delete' without indicating permissions, irreversibility, or side effects on the feature flag. The description lacks important behavioral context beyond the basic operation.
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?
Two concise sentences: first states the main purpose, second provides a critical usage hint. No redundant or unnecessary information, making the description efficient and front-loaded.
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?
The description covers the purpose and a key prerequisite, which is adequate for a simple 4-parameter tool. However, it omits any mention of return values (no output schema) and behavioral details like destructive nature beyond the verb 'Delete'. Completeness is functional but not enriched.
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 descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. It references get_flag_state for strategy IDs but does not elaborate on parameter usage. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given schema completeness.
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?
Clearly states the action 'Delete a strategy configuration from a feature flag environment' with a specific verb and resource. The mention of using get_flag_state to discover IDs distinguishes related tools and provides context for when to use this tool.
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 advises to use get_flag_state to discover strategy IDs before removal, which is a clear prerequisite. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or alternative approaches, but the context is well-provided for typical use.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool provides language-specific templates, searches for patterns, and uses a prompt-based approach. However, it doesn't detail side effects, limitations, or whether external calls are made.
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 lengthy but well-structured with sections and bullet points. Some redundancy exists, but it is efficiently organized for clarity.
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?
With no output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., code snippets, instructions). This is a significant gap, as the agent needs to know how to use the output.
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%, so all parameters have basic descriptions. The description adds operational context (e.g., language auto-detection from fileName) but doesn't significantly enhance meaning 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 states the tool generates code snippets and guidance for wrapping changes with feature flags, a specific action on a specific resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_flag and detect_flag by focusing on the wrapping process.
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 provides explicit usage steps and a critical warning about flag placement. It also advises when to use this tool in the workflow (after evaluate_change and create_flag). However, it doesn't explicitly state 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a mutation (configures/updates) and clarifies non-enablement. However, it omits details on whether the strategy is replaced or merged, permission requirements, or error conditions.
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?
Two sentences, each essential: first states the core action, second clarifies a key constraint. No unnecessary words. Excellent front-loading.
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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain how variants are used, what constitutes a 'flexibleRollout strategy', or return behavior. Adequate but incomplete.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description inaccurately describes rolloutPercentage as 'optional' when it is required in the schema. This misstatement could mislead AI agents. The description adds no other significant parameter semantics 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 identifies the tool's action as configuring/updating a flexibleRollout strategy for a feature flag environment. It also explicitly states what it does NOT do (enable the feature), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like toggle_flag_environment.
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 provides explicit guidance on when not to use (for enabling features) and directs users to toggle_flag_environment instead. However, it does not address other use cases or alternatives among siblings like remove_flag_strategy.
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 were provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the creation action and flag types but lacks disclosure of side effects, error handling, or prerequisites like permissions.
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?
Well-structured with clear sections and bullet points. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it includes an external link and some redundancy in the best practices list, which could be trimmed.
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?
Covers the creation of flags with type guidance and best practices. Lacks explanation of the return value or confirmation behavior, but for a creation tool it is fairly complete given the absence of an output schema.
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 context for flag types and best practices, which complements the schema but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 creates a new feature flag in Unleash, and lists distinct flag types with their specific purposes. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like cleanup_flag or detect_flag.
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?
Provides detailed guidance on when to use each flag type and best practices. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool compared to alternatives, missing some usage boundaries.
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 the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns markdown-formatted guidance and gives mandatory next actions. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects, which is typical for a consultative tool. Missing safety/permission context.
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 clear sections using bullet points and bold text. It front-loads the purpose and key workflow steps. While thorough, it could be slightly more concise by trimming redundant phrases, but overall it's efficient.
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 complexity of an evaluation tool with multiple decision factors and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool returns, when to use it, and the subsequent workflow. It could benefit from a brief example of the output format, but it sufficiently covers the agent's needs.
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%, so each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning or examples for individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Hence, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 that the tool provides comprehensive guidance for evaluating whether code changes require feature flags. It lists specific outputs (workflow, patterns, criteria, decision tree) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_flag or wrap_change by focusing on evaluation and then directing to them.
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?
It explicitly states when to use the tool (starting a feature, unsure about flag need, need rollout guidance, choosing flag type) and includes a mandatory workflow instructing subsequent tool calls. However, it does not mention when not to use it, such as when a flag is already confirmed unnecessary.
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?
With no annotations, the description must fully cover behavior. It mentions using the Unleash Admin API and the toggle action, but does not discuss side effects, idempotency, permissions, or rate limits. Adequate but not thorough.
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?
Two concise sentences: the first defines the core purpose, the second provides key usage guidance. No redundancy, front-loaded.
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?
No output schema; the description does not explain return values or error handling. While basic usage is covered, agents lack information on what to expect after invocation, which is important for a mutation tool.
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%, so parameter details are already provided. The description reiterates enabling/disabling but adds little new meaning. Baseline 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 verb 'enable or disable' and the resource 'feature flag in a specific environment', providing a specific action on a distinct resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing set_flag_rollout for gradual rollouts.
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 explicitly instructs when not to use this tool (for gradual rollouts, use set_flag_rollout). It implies the appropriate use case (simple enable/disable), though it could explicitly state 'use for toggling entire environment'.
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 discloses that the tool lists projects available to the token (implying auth), optionally supports pagination, and returns specific fields. However, it does not discuss rate limits, idempotency, or other behavioral details beyond what is stated.
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 two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the operation and providing usage guidance. No superfluous words; every sentence earns its place.
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 no output schema, the description lists the fields returned. Parameters are well-documented in the schema. The tool is simple (list projects) and the description covers purpose, usage context, auth, and output. It is complete for this complexity level.
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 descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—it mentions 'optional pagination' which aligns with limit/offset, and lists return fields. With high schema coverage, baseline 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's action ('List'), resource ('Unleash projects'), and context ('available to the configured token'), with optional pagination. It distinguishes itself from sibling flag tools by focusing on projects.
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 explicitly advises using this tool for 'discovery before scoping flag operations to a specific project,' providing clear context. It does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the sibling list consists entirely of flag-related tools, making its role clear.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the disjoint nature of active/archived, pagination support, and return fields (name, type, description, archived status, URL). Lacks depth on error behavior or authentication, but covers key behavioral traits for a list tool.
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?
Five sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by key behavioral notes, usage examples, and return fields. Every sentence adds value.
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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains pagination, sort, and the active/archived split. It lists return fields. Minor gaps: no mention of error states or rate limits, but core completeness is strong for a read-only list operation.
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%—all parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond restating the active/archived nuance already present in the schema. Baseline 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?
Description starts with 'List feature flags in an Unleash project'—a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_flag or cleanup_flag by stating its role as a discovery/inventory tool. The name and task are unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: 'discover flags before creating new ones, audit flag inventory for cleanup...' It also explains the need to call twice for active and archived, and notes that they are disjoint—this serves as a when-not-to-use guide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It details the workflow: returns step-by-step instructions, may ask user if preservePath not provided, handles multiple patterns, and includes safety features. It also mentions it is language-agnostic and provides verification steps.
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 fairly long but well-structured with clear sections (workflow, safety features, preserve path options). It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor verbosity exists (e.g., link to workflow inspiration), but overall earns its length.
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?
For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers when to use each parameter, workflow steps, safety measures, and post-cleanup tasks. No gaps remain for correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 100% (all 4 parameters described). The description adds significant value beyond the schema: explains preservePath options and consequences, clarifies optionality of files and language, and gives example for flagName. Baseline is 3, but additional context justifies 4.
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 states precisely: 'Remove a feature flag from the codebase while preserving the desired code path.' This specific verb+resource clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_flag, detect_flag, and toggle_flag.
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 includes a dedicated 'When to use this tool' section listing concrete scenarios (e.g., after flag rollout to 100%, deprecating experimental features). While it does not explicitly say when NOT to use, the scenarios are specific and complement sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses that the tool returns search instructions, not actual flags. It explains the multi-step process, output format, and expected user actions, making behavioral expectations completely transparent.
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 sections for purpose, strategies, usage, workflow, and output. It is somewhat verbose but every section adds value, and the front-loading of purpose is effective.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides complete guidance: explains the tool's meta-nature, return format (markdown instructions), workflow steps, and expected final output format. It covers all necessary context for an agent to use 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 description coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description adds context by relating parameters to detection strategies (e.g., files to file-based detection), enhancing understanding beyond 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 discovers existing feature flags to prevent duplicates and encourage reuse, listing specific detection strategies. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_flag and list_flags by describing its role as a discovery tool before creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use the tool: when about to create a new flag, evaluating necessity, or checking for similar functionality. Also mentions it's automatically called by evaluate_change before create_flag, providing clear workflow integration context.
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:

[![unleash-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Unleash/unleash-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Unleash/unleash-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![unleash-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Unleash/unleash-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Unleash/unleash-mcp)

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/Unleash/unleash-mcp'

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