GTech-Context-MCP-Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from overall context retrieval to specific schema, glossary, and workflow lookups. The detailed descriptions eliminate ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., get_glossary_term, list_kb_docs), making them predictable and easy to use.
Tool Count5/5
10 tools is well-scoped for a knowledge base query server. Each tool serves a specific function without overlapping or being superfluous.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers all necessary aspects of interacting with the KB: context, schema, relationships, workflows, patterns, glossary, and search. No obvious gaps for its read-only purpose.
Average 4/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 3.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes the tool's function and output, but does not explicitly mention that it is read-only or any other behavioral traits (no annotations are provided to compensate).
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, front-loaded with the database restriction, no filler words.
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?
Sufficient for a simple read tool with one parameter; could mention output format or error handling, but not necessary.
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 a detailed parameter description in the schema; the tool description adds no further semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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?
Clearly states it gets workflow documentation listing specific content (purpose, tables/rows, etc.), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_context or get_table_schema.
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?
Indicates the tool is database-specific (GTech/Hexagon), but provides no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives or 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses it returns both FK-enforced and logical relationships, and the optional parameter behavior, but lacks details on auth, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only, which leaves behavioral gaps.
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, front-loading scope and returning behavior. No redundant phrases; every word 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?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it returns (both FK and logical relationships) and the behavior when the parameter is omitted. It could mention that the operation is read-only, but overall it is sufficient.
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 one parameter. The description adds valuable semantics beyond the schema: it explains that omitting the parameter returns the full relationship map, which is not captured in the schema's generic 'description'.
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 specifies the tool's purpose: gets documented relationships (FK-enforced and logical) for a GTech/NetWorks Core table. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('relationships for a table'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_table_schema.
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 limits usage to GTech/NetWorks Core database only, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives (e.g., use get_table_schema for column metadata).
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 carries full burden. It only states that it looks up a term definition but does not disclose any behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., if term not found), authentication requirements, or whether it has side effects. This is minimal for a tool with no annotations.
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 a database-specific preamble, front-loading the restriction. No unnecessary words; every part earns its place.
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 one-parameter lookup tool, the description covers the purpose and parameter meaning. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., definition as string, object with fields) or behavior for missing terms. Given no output schema and no annotations, it is minimally adequate but has gaps.
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 gives no description for the 'term' parameter, but the tool description adds meaning by specifying it is a GTech/NetWorks Core domain term and provides examples (e.g., Feature, Component, Legend). This helps the agent understand what kind of string to provide.
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 looks up a glossary term's definition in a specific database (GTech/Hexagon). It provides examples of terms (Feature, Component, Legend), making the purpose precise and differentiating it from sibling tools that deal with contexts, relationships, or schemas.
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 indicates the tool is for looking up definitions of domain terms in a specific database, implying use cases where such definitions are needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling context suggests it's specialized for this purpose.
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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation ('List'), but does not mention any potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or ordering. The description is minimal but adequate for a simple 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with a parenthetical list of categories. It is front-loaded with the database scope. No extraneous words. Slightly lacks structure but is concise.
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 has one optional parameter, no output schema, and a set of sibling tools, the description covers the essential: database specificity and filtering. It could mention the output format (e.g., what fields are returned) but is otherwise complete for a 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 0%, so the description adds meaning beyond the schema by listing possible category values (schema, relationships, workflows, patterns, glossary). However, it does not specify if these are the only valid values, case sensitivity, or format constraints. It partially compensates for missing schema descriptions.
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 (List), resource (documents in GTech/NetWorks Core knowledge base), and scope (optionally filtered by category). It also specifies the database context, distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on other databases or provide single-item retrieval.
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 clear context about the applicable database (GTech/NetWorks Core) and states it is not relevant to other systems. It lists the filter categories, but does not explicitly compare with siblings like search_kb or get_context for scenarios where a filtered list vs search is appropriate. Still, it gives a reasonable usage hint.
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 the scope (specific database) and basic search behavior, but lacks details on edge cases (e.g., empty results) or any side effects.
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 long, front-loaded with the critical scope, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
For a 2-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and scope. It could mention the return format or result type to improve completeness, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the description does not explain the purpose or constraints of the 'query' and 'limit' parameters beyond what is in the schema. The user must infer how to format queries or how limit affects results.
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 specifies a clear verb ('full-text search') and resource ('GTech/NetWorks Core knowledge base docs'), and explicitly limits the scope to a specific database, distinguishing it from sibling tools which target narrower aspects.
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 states that the tool is only useful for requests confirmed to concern the GTech database, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly list when to avoid using it or suggest alternative sibling tools.
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 burden. It discloses that the tool resolves tables and returns docs plus rules, but does not mention behavioral traits such as potential latency, side effects, or whether it is a pure read operation. Some guidance is present but not comprehensive.
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 paragraph, front-loaded with the usage constraint. Every sentence adds value: it specifies database context, purpose as one-shot context pack, and what it returns. No redundant information.
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 complexity and the sibling tools, the description is fairly complete. It explains what it does, when to use, and what it returns. However, there is no output schema, and the description could be slightly more explicit about the structure of the returned context pack.
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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, e.g., it mentions resolving tables but does not explain how parameters like 'limit' or 'include_full_docs' affect the result.
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 specific verb 'get context bundle' and resource 'one-shot context pack for an agent', and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_table_schema' or 'resolve_tables_for_query' by indicating it returns a comprehensive set of docs including schema, workflows, and rules.
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 states when to use: 'Only call this for requests already confirmed to concern the GTech/NetWorks Core database'. It implies it is a preparatory step, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare directly to alternatives.
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, but the description clearly indicates a read-only fetch operation ('Get a documented reasoning recipe'). It does not mention any destructive side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits, but the nature of the tool is transparently a retrieval.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the scope, action, and purpose with examples. Every part adds value; no redundant or wasted words.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and provides usage examples. It could mention the return format, but this is minor given the tool's clarity.
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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'topic', providing an example. The description adds value by giving additional concrete topic examples ('reordering', 'new-approval-step'), which helps the agent understand valid inputs beyond the schema's example.
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 specifies the tool fetches a reasoning recipe for database changes, scoped to GTech/Hexagon HxGN NetWorks Core, with concrete examples (e.g., inserting a row, reordering columns). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_table_schema or get_glossary_term.
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 implies usage by providing examples of when to use (e.g., 'how to insert a new row', 'how to reorder/renumber'), but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tools for other tasks. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.
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. Describes what the tool returns (columns, types, PK/FK, business-meaning notes). Does not state authorization needs or rate limits, but the expected read-only behavior is implied by 'Get' and scope. Could mention if it requires database connectivity, but overall 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?
Single well-structured sentence with database restriction front-loaded in brackets. No wasted words, concise yet informative.
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?
For a simple tool with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return content, and usage restriction. Could be slightly improved by noting it only works for existing tables, but current text 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter 'table' described as case-insensitive. Description adds minimal new semantic meaning beyond schema, only reiterating 'specific table' and scope. Baseline 3 is appropriate; description does not significantly compensate.
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 clearly states verb (get), resource (full schema documentation for a specific table), and scope (GTech/NetWorks Core G3E_* schema). Explicitly distinguishes from other systems by stating 'Do not use for tables belonging to any other database/system.' No sibling differentiation needed beyond that.
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 says 'Do not use for tables belonging to any other database/system,' which provides a clear when-not-to-use guideline. Implies usage for GTech tables needing schema docs, but does not explicitly name alternative tools like get_relationships or resolve_tables_for_query for related tasks.
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 describes output behavior but does not explicitly state it is read-only or non-destructive, nor mention any side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. Adequate but not fully 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?
Concise and well-structured; front-loads the domain restriction in brackets. Each of the three sentences adds value: scope, prerequisite, and output. No redundancy or fluff.
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 compensates by describing return content (ranked list with reasons, workflow/pattern/relationship docs, concrete next steps). Covers prerequisites and workflow position. Lack of response format details prevents a 5.
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 both parameters (query, limit) already described. The tool description does not add significant new semantics beyond restating schema info. 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 resolves tables/docs relevant to a user query for the GTech/NetWorks Core database, using specific verbs ('returns a ranked list of relevant tables with reasons...'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_table_schema and get_context by specifying its position in the workflow.
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 says when to call ('Only call this for requests already confirmed to concern the GTech/NetWorks Core database'), provides sequencing ('Call this after get_context and before fetching any specific table schema'), and explains its value ('tells you WHICH schema docs to fetch instead of guessing').
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?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral expectations: read-only/advisory rules, never fabricate, propose not execute. It also describes the return structure (purpose, rules, inventory).
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 somewhat verbose but front-loads critical information. Every sentence contributes value; minor reduction possible.
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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage rules, and return content. It is complete.
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?
No parameters exist, so the description need not add param details. Baseline 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
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 as an entry point for the GTech/Hexagon database, specifying the exact system and when to use it. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the mandatory first call.
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 call (first, if database relevant) and when not to (if unclear, ask user). Provides clear context for decision-making.
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:

[![GTech-Context-MCP-Server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Venkatesh-Jyothula/GTech-Context-MCP-Server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Venkatesh-Jyothula/GTech-Context-MCP-Server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![GTech-Context-MCP-Server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Venkatesh-Jyothula/GTech-Context-MCP-Server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Venkatesh-Jyothula/GTech-Context-MCP-Server)

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/Venkatesh-Jyothula/GTech-Context-MCP-Server'

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