mingle-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: getting a digest, publishing/removing cards, rating connections, requesting/responding to intros, and searching. No overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow the verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., get_digest, publish_intent_card, rate_connection), providing a predictable and consistent naming scheme.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server covers the core operations of a social matching network (CRUD for cards, interaction, feedback, discovery) without being bloated or sparse.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers essential lifecycle operations: create/delete cards, request/respond to intros, rate connections, and search. Minor gap: no explicit update card tool (cards expire and can be re-published), but overall coverage is strong.
Average 4/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 3.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 1 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 20 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on March 12, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. It only mentions 'Nothing personal crosses until both sides say yes,' but does not disclose the full process (e.g., pending state, notification behavior, or consequences).
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 concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a key behavioral hint.
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?
The description is brief and lacks important context: no output details, no mention of success/error states, no prerequisites beyond matching, and no elaboration on the 'pending' nature implied by 'both sides say yes.'
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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (match_id, to, message). The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?
Description clearly states it is for reaching out to a matched person on Mingle, specifying the action (reach out, send message) and resource (matches). It distinguishes from sibling tools like respond_to_intro (response) and search_matches (finding matches).
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?
Description implies use after a match but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives (e.g., respond_to_intro). It lacks direct guidance on prerequisites or contextual triggers.
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?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses ghost mode and anonymous browsing, but does not explicitly state read-only nature, authentication needs, or side effects. While helpful, it lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure expected for a mutation-ambiguous tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three concise sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the main function, highlighting ghost mode capability, and explaining how results are ranked. No fluff or 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?
With no output schema, the description should detail return values. It mentions 'ranked matches based on semantic similarity' but does not specify the structure of the matches, fields returned, or pagination. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent invoking the 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?
All parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds context like 'ghost mode' and 'browse anonymously', which mirrors the schema descriptions for query_needs and query_offers. It does not provide significant additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers.
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: finding relevant people on the Mingle network. It specifies the verb 'find', the resource 'people', and key context like ghost mode and semantic similarity ranking. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which handle publishing, rating, and introductions.
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 description implies usage scenarios, such as when the user has no published card (ghost mode). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives like get_digest or other search functions. Usage context is implied but not fully articulated.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions the action is feedback to improve matching, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., visibility, ability to change rating) or required permissions. Adequate for a simple feedback tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant words. Every sentence adds value.
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 or annotations, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and the overall benefit. Missing return value details but not critical for this simple action.
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 parameter descriptions already exist. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, thus baseline 3.
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?
Clearly states the action (rate a connection) and resource (connection through Mingle), with context on when to use (after intro approved and interaction). Distinguishes from sibling tools like request_intro or respond_to_intro.
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?
Implicitly provides usage context ('After an intro is approved and you've interacted'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools. Still clear enough for an agent.
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?
With no annotations, the description adds behavioral context: it states removal preserves identity and history, and is reversible via republishing. It does not mention potential side effects or permissions, but adequately highlights non-destructive nature.
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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value (purpose + reassurance). No verbose or redundant content.
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 the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, main effect, and key behavioral traits. It omits details like error handling or prerequisites, but is generally sufficient for correct 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?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with a description for 'card_id'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('your card'), clearly stating the action. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'publish_intent_card' by mentioning 'Publish a fresh card anytime', indicating a contrasting action.
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 implies when to use (when you want to remove your card) and provides context that identity and connection history are preserved, and republishing is possible. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to other tools beyond the publishing hint.
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, the description carries full burden. It discloses key traits: Ed25519 signing, 48h expiry, and immediate match returns. However, it does not explain mutation semantics (e.g., whether publishing overwrites an existing card) 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, front-loading the main purpose and then adding behavioral details. Every sentence provides value with no redundancy.
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 the tool's complexity (7 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main behavioral aspects (signing, expiry, immediate matches) and overall purpose. However, it omits details about idempotency, limits, or relationship with sibling tools like remove_intent_card.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description does not add significant extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool publishes a profile card to the Mingle network. It specifies the verb 'publish' and the resource 'profile card', and distinguishes itself from siblings like search_matches and remove_intent_card by being the creation action.
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?
While the description implies use when wanting to publish an intent card, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide when-not guidance. However, the overall purpose is clear enough to guide correct usage.
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 exist, so description carries full burden. It accurately describes a non-destructive read operation and mentions return contents, but omits details like rate limits or auth requirements.
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 concise, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words, earning every sentence.
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, the description adequately explains return values and usage timing. Lacks response format details but is sufficient for a simple zero-parameter 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?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable since schema shows no parameters.
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 ('Check what's happening on the Mingle network') and lists specific outputs (pending intro requests, top matches, card status), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform actions.
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 explicitly advises to call this at session start, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases or contrast with siblings.
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, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the privacy behavior (details withheld until both approve), which is critical for correct invocation. It does not mention auth needs or side effects, but the simple nature of the tool mitigates this.
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 with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action, then provides context and privacy rule. Highly efficient.
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 simple action, the description covers purpose, usage, and a key behavioral rule. It does not explain return values, but for an action like responding to an intro, this is acceptable. Completeness is high 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 descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by clarifying 'approve' maps to connecting and 'decline' to passing, and notes the message is optional, aiding correct parameter usage.
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 action 'respond to an introduction' on Mingle, specifies the context (AI matchmaking), and defines two clear outcomes (approve/decline). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like request_intro or search_matches.
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 explicitly states when to use ('Someone's AI reached out') and implies a condition ('No details shared unless both sides say yes'), guiding the agent on appropriate usage. It could name alternative tools for more explicit guidance.
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:

[![mingle-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aeoess/mingle-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aeoess/mingle-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mingle-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aeoess/mingle-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aeoess/mingle-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/aeoess/mingle-mcp'

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