Skip to main content
Glama
Zeliper

z-code-mcp

by Zeliper
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly defined.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Single tool named with a verb ('orchestrate'), consistent with a command-style action. No pattern inconsistency possible.

    Tool Count3/5

    A single tool for a server that coordinates multiple sessions is borderline thin. While the tool itself is non-trivial, the server would benefit from additional tools for session management, making the count slightly low for its apparent scope.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete. The server's purpose implies managing multiple Claude Code sessions, but there are no tools for creating, listing, monitoring, or terminating sessions—only a single orchestration tool that attempts to handle everything.

  • Average 3.4/5 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 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the HEAD/SUB pattern and task handling, it does not explain important aspects such as error handling, recovery strategies, authentication requirements, resource cleanup, or side effects. The description provides a high-level overview without sufficient depth for an agent to anticipate behavior beyond the basic workflow.

    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 concise with two well-structured sentences. The first sentence introduces the core functionality and the HEAD/SUB concept, while the second elaborates on the workflow. Every sentence contributes meaningfully, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary information.

    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 the complexity of the tool (nested parameters, coordination strategies, resource limits) and the absence of an output schema, the description is too high-level. It does not cover return value structure, failure modes, aggregation details, or how task dependencies are handled. The agent lacks sufficient context to understand the full orchestration lifecycle, which is a significant gap for such a nuanced 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal context beyond the schema; it does not explain how the parameters (e.g., tasks, coordination strategy) affect the HEAD/SUB orchestration or the execution plan. The description's value beyond the schema is limited, but the schema itself is thorough.

    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 the tool orchestrates Claude Code sessions with HEAD/SUB coordination, explaining the high-level workflow of analyzing objectives, creating execution plans, spawning SUB processes, and aggregating results. The verb 'orchestrate' and resource 'multiple Claude Code sessions' are specific and unambiguous.

    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?

    No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies usage for tasks requiring multi-session coordination but does not specify prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions for deferring. Since there are no sibling tools, the lack of explicit guidelines is less critical but still a missed opportunity.

    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

z-code-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

z-code-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/Zeliper/z-code-mcp'

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