Skip to main content
Glama
a1ex-bb

kontra

by a1ex-bb
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.2.9

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: 'challenge' runs the debate loop, 'configure_debate' modifies the setup, and 'debate_status' displays configuration and key status. No overlap in functionality.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names use a consistent lowercase_with_underscores pattern. The names clearly indicate their action and scope.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools perfectly scope the server's purpose: one for running debates, one for configuration, and one for status. This minimal set avoids bloat while covering the core functions.

    Completeness4/5

    The server covers the main debate workflow (run, configure, check status). A minor gap is the lack of a tool to stop a running debate or reset configuration, but these are not essential for the primary use case.

  • Average 4.5/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 18 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 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 provided, so description carries burden. It discloses persistence across sessions and partial update design. However, it does not mention that the debaters array completely replaces the existing set (schema says 'replace the full set'), nor potential side effects or validation behavior.

    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?

    Three sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose and persistence. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

    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 and no annotations, the description covers purpose, persistence, usage context, provider list, limits, and partial updates. It misses mention of confirmation or return behavior, but is largely complete for a configuration tool.

    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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining 'personalities', 'up to 5' debaters, 'round limit (up to 12)', and listing supported providers ('anthropic, openai, google'). It also clarifies partial updates.

    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 'Set and SAVE the debate setup', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings 'challenge' and 'debate_status' by focusing on configuration.

    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 tells when to use the tool ('whenever the user wants to change who debates or the round limit') and advises partial updates ('Pass only the fields you want to change'). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context with siblings implies that.

    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, but the description discloses that it displays saved configuration and API key status. It implies a read-only operation without side effects. Would benefit from explicitly stating it doesn't modify anything.

    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 front-load the key information: what is shown (first sentence) and when to use it (second sentence). No unnecessary details.

    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?

    The description covers the output content (debaters, providers, models, API keys) and usage context. No output schema exists, so the description serves as the sole documentation for what the agent can expect. Could be enhanced with more detail on output structure.

    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?

    With zero parameters, the schema trivially covers everything. The description adds value by explaining what information the tool returns, meeting the baseline for 0-param 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 states it shows the saved debate setup including specific components like debaters, providers, models, and API key status. It distinguishes from siblings 'challenge' (likely starting a debate) and 'configure_debate' (changing settings) by focusing on status display.

    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 tells the agent to call this to confirm setup or when the user asks about debaters. Provides clear context for use, though no exclusion criteria given.

    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 description carries full burden. It details the loop steps, status field meanings ('settled', 'error', 'continue'), error handling for missing API key, and the 'instruction' field. No contradictions found.

    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 dense but well-structured, with the loop steps clearly enumerated. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with purpose and usage condition.

    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 output schema, the description explains return value fields (status, instruction) and covers edge cases like missing API key and round caps. It is fully comprehensive for the tool's complexity.

    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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds context: 'topic' is the user's question restated, 'position' is the host's argument, 'transcript' includes prior rounds with speaker names. This adds value 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's purpose: 'Present your position to the saved debaters and run a discussion before you answer.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying that configure_debate is used for changing debaters or round limits.

    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: 'When the user has activated kontra mode ... ALWAYS run this loop before answering substantive questions.' It also provides alternatives (configure_debate for configuration) and stopping conditions.

    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

kontra MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

kontra 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/a1ex-bb/kontra'

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