Skip to main content
Glama
ZainRizvi

gemini-cli

by ZainRizvi
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap. The tool's purpose is clearly defined as executing queries via the Gemini CLI.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    The single tool name 'gemini_query' follows a clear noun_verb pattern and is descriptive. Since there is only one tool, consistency cannot be fully assessed, but the name is reasonable and follows common conventions.

    Tool Count3/5

    A server with a single tool feels thin for the broad range of tasks described (code analysis, web search, code review). While a single tool can be acceptable for a simple CLI wrapper, the scope of use cases suggests more tools might be expected.

    Completeness3/5

    The single tool appears to cover a wide range of query types, but the lack of any additional tools for managing sessions, configurations, or other CLI capabilities leaves notable gaps. The surface is functional but not fully complete for a comprehensive Gemini CLI integration.

  • Average 3.8/5 across 1 of 1 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
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is failing

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It does reveal that this is a local CLI tool capable of web searches and AI-based analysis, hinting at network usage and nondeterministic behavior. Yet it omits key operational details such as latency, side effects, output format, error handling, or rate limits, making transparency only partial.

    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, front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a numbered list of use cases. While listing five use cases makes it somewhat verbose, every item adds distinct value and contributes to the reader's understanding.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description should cover return behavior, errors, or operational risk, but it does not. It adequately explains the tool's intended use cases and parameters, yet for an AI-querying tool this is a notable gap that leaves the agent partially uninformed about what to expect after invocation.

    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%, with both 'prompt' and 'model' parameters already well-documented in the schema, including types, defaults, constraints, and examples. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Execute a query using the local Gemini CLI tool.' It then elaborates with five concrete use cases, making the tool's scope and intent unmistakable even without sibling tools for comparison.

    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 'Best used for' section provides explicit contexts for use, covering codebase analysis, web searches, alternative perspectives, research, and code reviews. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or any alternative approaches, so it falls short of the full 5 criteria.

    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

gemini-cli-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

gemini-cli-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/ZainRizvi/gemini-cli-mcp'

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