MCP Variance Log
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.0.0
- Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have distinct purposes (e.g., create_table vs. list_tables), but there is overlap between log-query and read-logs, as both involve logging/retrieving conversation variations, which could cause confusion. Additionally, read_query and write_query are clearly distinct from each other but share the database query domain with other tools like describe_table.
Naming Consistency2/5Naming is inconsistent with mixed conventions: some use snake_case (append_insight, create_table), others use kebab-case (log-query, read-logs), and some are unclear (read_query vs. write_query, which are snake_case but differ in verb style). There is no uniform pattern across all tools, making it harder to predict naming.
Tool Count4/5With 8 tools, the count is reasonable for a server focused on database operations and conversation logging. It covers core functions without being overly bloated, though the scope might feel slightly broad due to mixing database management with logging features.
Completeness3/5For database operations, there is good coverage (create, list, describe, read, write), but lacks update/delete specific tools, relying on write_query for those. For conversation logging, it has logging and retrieval, but no direct management tools like delete_logs or update_logs, leaving minor gaps in the lifecycle.
Average 3/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 2.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No issues in the last 6 months
- No commit activity data available
- No stable releases found
- 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.jsonto 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. It describes what gets logged (unusual interactions based on probability classes) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read or write operation, permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens after logging (e.g., stores data, triggers alerts). The focus is on criteria rather than tool behavior, leaving gaps in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with bullet points for probability classifications, which is clear but verbose. It's front-loaded with 'Conversation Variation analysis', but the content is overly detailed for criteria rather than the tool's purpose. Some sentences could be condensed, and it includes unnecessary repetition (e.g., listing examples for each class). It's not optimally concise for a tool description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It focuses on logging criteria but doesn't explain what the tool does with the input (e.g., queries logs, analyzes data, stores entries). Without annotations or output schema, it should provide more context on behavior and results, but it falls short, leaving the agent unclear on the tool's function.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema; it mentions probability classifications (HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW) which align with the 'probability_class' parameter's enum, but this is redundant. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate with additional param insights.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Conversation Variation analysis' and 'automatically log unusual or noteworthy interactions', which gives a vague purpose but doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., query logs, analyze conversations, or create logs). It's more about criteria for logging than the tool's function. The title is null, and the name 'log-query' suggests querying logs, but the description focuses on monitoring criteria without clearly stating the tool's action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides criteria for when interactions are logged (MEDIUM and LOW probability classes), but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read-logs' or 'write_query'. It implies usage for logging based on probability, but lacks clear guidance on tool selection, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to sibling tools.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add' implies a write operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens if the memo doesn't exist, if there are rate limits, or the format of the memo. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'memo' is in this context, how insights are formatted or stored, or what the tool returns upon success or failure, leaving the agent with incomplete information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'insight' parameter clearly documented as 'Business insight discovered from data analysis'. The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add') and the target resource ('business insight to the memo'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'write_query' or 'log-query' that might also involve adding content, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. With sibling tools like 'write_query' and 'log-query' that could involve similar data operations, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for using 'append_insight'.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'create' which implies a mutation, but doesn't cover permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a database mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, efficiently conveying the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a database mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns success confirmation, table metadata, or nothing), error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with incomplete context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'query' fully documented in the schema as 'CREATE TABLE SQL statement'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('create a new table') and resource ('in the SQLite database'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'write_query' which might also create tables, missing explicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'write_query' or other SQL execution tools. The description states what it does but offers no context about prerequisites, when it's appropriate, or what makes it distinct from siblings.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'show structure' but does not specify what 'structure' entails (e.g., column names, types, constraints), whether it requires permissions, or if it's read-only (implied but not explicit). This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence: 'Show structure of a specific table'. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has no redundant words, and efficiently communicates the essential action without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'structure' includes (e.g., schema details), potential errors (e.g., if table doesn't exist), or return format, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, with 'table_name' fully described as 'Name of the table to describe'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Show structure of a specific table' clearly states the verb 'show' and resource 'structure of a specific table', making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list_tables' (which likely lists table names) or 'read_query' (which might query table data), leaving room for ambiguity in sibling context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., table must exist), exclusions (e.g., not for querying data), or refer to sibling tools like 'list_tables' for discovery or 'read_query' for data retrieval, offering minimal usage context.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool executes queries but doesn't mention critical aspects like whether it requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., data loss), error handling, or transaction behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, permissions), expected outputs, error conditions, and how it differs from sibling tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'query' documented as a 'Non-SELECT SQL query to execute'. The description adds value by specifying the allowed query types (INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE), which clarifies the parameter's semantics beyond the schema's generic 'Non-SELECT' label. However, it doesn't provide additional details like syntax examples or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs (INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE) and resource (query), making it evident this executes data manipulation SQL statements. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'create_table' or 'log-query', which might also involve database operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 like 'read_query' for SELECT queries or 'create_table' for table creation. It mentions the types of queries (INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE) but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
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 the full burden. It states 'List all tables' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires permissions, how results are formatted (e.g., pagination), or if it's read-only. This is inadequate 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded and directly conveys the core action, making it highly concise and well-structured for its purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, format) and does not explain return values, which is insufficient for a tool that might have complexity in how tables are listed or accessed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not add parameter details, and since there are no parameters, it meets the baseline for this scenario without compensation required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('tables in the database'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from potential siblings like 'describe_table' or 'read_query', which might also involve table information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. With siblings like 'describe_table' (for details on a specific table) and 'read_query' (which might list tables via SQL), there is no explicit or implied context for choosing this tool, leaving a significant gap.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieval but fails to specify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, or details about rate limits or pagination. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output format, leaving room for improvement in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all four parameters with details like defaults and formats. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 without compensating for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('retrieve') and resource ('logged conversation variations from the database'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'log-query' or 'read_query', which might have overlapping functionality, so it misses the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 such as 'log-query' or 'read_query', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this tool executes SELECT queries (implying read-only behavior), provides a detailed schema reference for the main table, and includes a concrete example showing query structure and limitations (LIMIT 5). However, it doesn't mention potential errors, performance considerations, or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The schema reference and example are useful additions, though the example could be more concise. Every sentence earns its place by providing necessary context for query construction.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (executing arbitrary SELECT queries), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by providing a detailed table schema and example. However, it lacks information about return format, error handling, or query limitations beyond the example, leaving some gaps for a tool with significant behavioral implications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the single parameter 'query' is fully described in the schema as 'SELECT SQL query to execute'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing a schema reference and example query that clarifies what constitutes a valid query, but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond what the schema implies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Execute a SELECT query') and resource ('on the SQLite database'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like write_query (which presumably handles writes) and list_tables/describe_table (which handle metadata). The description explicitly mentions SELECT queries, which helps differentiate from other database operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through the example (showing a SELECT query on the chat_monitoring table), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like read-logs or log-query (which might be for specific log access). There's no guidance on prerequisites, error conditions, or explicit exclusions.
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
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
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/truaxki/mcp-variance-log'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server