Skip to main content
Glama
Yuki4-dev

gRPC MCP Server

by Yuki4-dev
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v2.0.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: getMethodInformation retrieves metadata about methods, loadProto loads file content, and sendRequest sends requests to a server. An agent can easily differentiate these functions without confusion.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    The naming is mixed: getMethodInformation and loadProto use camelCase, while sendRequest uses snake_case. This inconsistency in convention reduces predictability, though the names remain readable and descriptive.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 3 tools, the server feels thin for a gRPC domain, which typically involves operations like listing services, invoking methods, or handling streams. While the tools cover basic tasks, the count is borderline low for comprehensive gRPC interactions.

    Completeness2/5

    The toolset has significant gaps for gRPC operations: it lacks capabilities for listing services or methods, handling streaming calls, or managing server connections. This incompleteness will likely cause agent failures in common gRPC workflows.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.

  • 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

  • Behavior1/5

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

    The description provides no behavioral details beyond the basic action. No annotations exist to compensate. It fails to disclose error behavior, state modifications, authentication needs, or any other traits.

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

    Conciseness3/5

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

    The description is extremely concise (one sentence) but lacks informative content. It is not wasteful, but brevity comes at the cost of missing key details.

    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?

    Given 7 parameters, 5 required, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error handling, or usage patterns.

    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 baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter information, but the schema already describes each parameter adequately.

    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 and resource: 'send a request to a gRPC server'. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'getMethodInformation' and 'loadProto', which serve different purposes.

    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 versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites or contexts where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate.

    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 provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, permissions, or error cases. It is incomplete for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

    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?

    Single sentence, front-loaded with the purpose. Efficient, but could be more concise by including key details like return format.

    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 no output schema, the description does not explain what the result looks like. It covers the basics but leaves questions about output format and error handling.

    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 self-explanatory parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning or constraints beyond the schema, so baseline 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 'Get information about methods in a proto file' clearly states the verb and resource, and it distinguishes from siblings like loadProto (loads file) and sendRequest (sends request). However, it is vague on what 'information' means (e.g., signature, doc?).

    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 versus loadProto or sendRequest. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or alternatives.

    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 the basic operation without disclosing side effects, safety profile, or error conditions. For a read operation, this is minimal disclosure.

    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 of 8 words, highly concise with no superfluous content. Every word is necessary to convey the basic 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?

    Given no output schema, the description should explain the return format. It says 'return its content' but does not specify what the content looks like (e.g., raw text, parsed structure). Additionally, the parameter is a directory, but the description refers to a file, causing ambiguity about whether it loads a single file or multiple.

    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% for the single parameter, and the description does not add meaningful information beyond what the schema already provides. It repeats the same idea but less precisely.

    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 action (load) and resource (proto file) along with the outcome (return its content). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getMethodInformation and sendRequest, which have different purposes.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions for use.

    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

grpc-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

grpc-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/Yuki4-dev/grpc-mcp'

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