Skip to main content
Glama
abhishekjkrsna

SWAPI MCP

by abhishekjkrsna
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.4

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a distinct purpose: listing characters, listing information categories, and searching for a specific character. Though two tools involve characters, one explicitly returns a list while the other handles specific searches, creating clear separation.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All names use a consistent lowercase-hyphenated style with action verbs, but the verbs vary (get, get, search) and the nouns are not uniform (characters, information, character). This is mostly consistent with minor deviations.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 3 tools, the set is on the lower end for a Star Wars API server, which typically covers many resources. The count is within an acceptable range but feels minimal for the apparent scope of the SWAPI domain.

    Completeness2/5

    The server lacks tools to retrieve specific non-character resources such as films, planets, or species, despite listing these categories. This significant gap prevents agents from acting on the category information, limiting the server's usefulness.

  • Average 3.3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 9 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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which describe the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond a restatement of the title; it does not mention pagination, data scope, or any other constraints, so it fails to add value beyond the structured annotations.

    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 a single sentence, which is concise in length, but it is vague and grammatically awkward ('various of star Wars characters'). It does not add much beyond the title but is not severely under-specified.

    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?

    There is no output schema, so the description should describe the return value; it does say it provides a list of characters. However, it does not clarify whether this is all characters, a paginated subset, or how many results are returned. Given the simplicity of a zero-parameter tool, this is minimally adequate but leaves open ambiguity.

    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 tool has no parameters, so the input schema is empty and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. No additional information is required.

    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 states it provides a list of Star Wars characters, which is a clear verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing specifically on characters rather than general information or searching for a specific character, though it could be more precise.

    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?

    There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools 'get-list-of-star-wars-information' or 'search-star-wars-character'. The description lacks any context about intended use cases or exclusions, so agents have no basis for selecting this tool over alternatives.

    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?

    Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context such as return format or pagination, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

    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 that is front-loaded and to the point. Every word contributes, and there is no unnecessary filler.

    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?

    The tool has no output schema and no parameters, so the description must clarify what the list contains. Saying 'different categories' is vague and leaves the agent uncertain about the specific categories (e.g., characters, films, planets). More detail would improve completeness.

    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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds no parameter information because none are needed, which aligns with the baseline for no-param tools.

    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 states the tool provides a list of different categories of Star Wars information, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, though the siblings are character-focused, implying a broader scope.

    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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and siblings.

    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?

    Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as response format, error behavior, or rate limits. It does not contradict annotations, but also provides no additional transparency beyond them.

    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 with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without redundancy.

    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 tool with annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not specify what 'information' is returned, and since there is no output schema, this gap is notable. An agent would not know if this returns a full bio, a summary, or just a reference to another resource.

    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?

    The input schema fully describes the 'name' parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'specific' character, which adds a slight nuance (singular vs plural) but does not meaningfully enhance understanding beyond the schema.

    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 it searches for information about a specific Star Wars character, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get-information-of-star-wars-characters or get-list-of-star-wars-information, though 'specific' implies a single vs multiple distinction.

    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 usage context is implied by 'specific character'—it's for single-character queries. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer the differentiation from the tool name and description.

    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

swapi-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

swapi-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/abhishekjkrsna/swapi-mcp'

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