@agenticbits/claude-plugin

by agenticbits

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap. For example, add_repo and remove_repo handle opposite operations, while get_branch_status and check_repo_branch provide different scopes of branch information. The descriptions make it easy to distinguish between configuration management tools (get_config_info, toggle_statusbar) and repository-specific operations.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern with clear, descriptive names. The verbs are appropriate and consistent (add, check, get, list, remove, set, toggle, validate), and all use snake_case throughout. There are no deviations or mixed conventions in the naming scheme.
Tool Count5/5
With 10 tools, this server is well-scoped for managing git repository status in a status bar. Each tool serves a specific purpose in the workflow, from adding/removing repos to checking status and toggling visibility. The count is neither too sparse nor bloated, fitting the domain perfectly.
Completeness5/5
The toolset provides complete coverage for the domain of managing git repositories in a status bar. It includes all necessary CRUD operations (add, list, remove), status checks (branch, validation), configuration management (get config, toggle features), and visibility controls. There are no obvious gaps, and agents can perform full lifecycle management without dead ends.
Average 3.5/5 across 10 of 10 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 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

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 but fails to indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what format the branch name is returned in, or what happens if the identifier doesn't match a repo (error vs empty response).
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 zero redundancy. Every word serves a purpose in defining the operation, scope, and lookup mechanism.
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?
Adequate for a single-parameter tool, but the absence of an output schema means the description should ideally hint at the return value (e.g., branch name string). As written, it meets minimum viability but leaves operational gaps.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description aligns with the schema by mentioning 'label or path', but adds no additional semantic depth such as examples, path format requirements, or validation rules beyond the schema's 'Repo label or absolute path'.
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 the action ('Get'), resource ('current branch'), and target ('single repo'), including the lookup method ('by its label or path'). It lacks explicit differentiation from the sibling tool 'get_branch_status', which could confuse tool selection.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, particularly the similarly-named 'get_branch_status' sibling. There are no prerequisites, error conditions, or usage constraints mentioned.
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 full burden. While it states the immediate action, it omits behavioral traits such as whether changes persist across sessions, what happens if the label doesn't exist, or required permissions. For a state-mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
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, efficient 11-word sentence. It front-loads the action verbs and wastes no words. Every element earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, for a mutation operation with zero annotations, it should disclose error conditions or persistence behavior to be complete.
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%, with 'label' described as 'Repo label' and 'show' as 'true = show in status bar, false = hide'. The description mirrors this information ('by its label', 'Show or hide') but adds no additional semantic context like label format requirements or default behaviors.
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 uses specific verbs ('Show or hide') and identifies the resource ('specific repo') and scope ('in the status bar'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'toggle_statusbar' by focusing on a specific repo rather than the entire status bar, though it could explicitly mention this distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'toggle_statusbar' or 'list_repos'. It lacks 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' criteria, forcing the agent to infer appropriate usage solely from the function name.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It hints at safety by specifying 'from the status bar,' implying a UI-only operation, but fails to explicitly confirm this is non-destructive or reversible via add_repo. Lacks disclosure on side effects or failure modes.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, zero redundancy. Every word earns its place given the tool's simplicity.
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?
Adequate for a single-parameter tool with no output schema, but incomplete given the potential for user confusion between 'removing from UI' and 'deleting repository.' Should explicitly confirm the scope limitation for full completeness.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage ('Repo label to remove'), the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'by its label,' aligning with the schema, but adds no additional semantic context such as valid label formats, case sensitivity, or where to find available labels (e.g., via list_repos).
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 the action (Remove), resource (repository), and specific scope (from the status bar). It distinguishes itself from siblings like validate_repo_path or add_repo by specifying the status bar context, though it could explicitly clarify it is the inverse of add_repo.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explicitly state that it does not delete the actual repository files (only removes from display). No mention of prerequisites or relationship to add_repo.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies the dual validation logic (existence + git-ness) but omits return value structure, error handling behavior, and explicit read-only safety guarantees that would be critical given destructive siblings like remove_repo.
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?
Single sentence with no redundancy, front-loaded with the action ('Check') and target ('filesystem path'). Every word serves the definition without 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?
Adequate for a single-parameter tool, but gaps remain regarding output format (boolean vs. object) and failure modes given the absence of an output schema or annotations.
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% (path described as 'Absolute path to check'), establishing the baseline. The description mentions 'filesystem path' but adds no additional semantic constraints (e.g., symlink handling, required permissions) beyond what the schema already provides.
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 the tool validates both filesystem existence and git repository status, distinguishing it from siblings like check_repo_branch (which validates branch state) and list_repos (which lists managed repositories).
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 explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., list_repos for known managed repos) or prerequisites (e.g., path accessibility). The agent must infer usage context solely from the name and description.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies the return content (path and configuration), implying a read-only operation, but fails to explicitly state safety characteristics, side effects, or whether the configuration might be sensitive/large.
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, efficient sentence of 11 words with no redundant content. The information is front-loaded with the verb 'Return' immediately clarifying the tool's action.
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 (zero parameters) and lack of output schema, the description adequately compensates by specifying what data is returned. However, it could improve by indicating the configuration format (JSON, YAML, etc.) or 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?
The input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, establishing the baseline score of 4. No additional parameter semantics are needed or provided in the description.
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 the tool returns the config file path and full configuration, distinguishing it from sibling repository management tools (add_repo, list_repos, etc.). However, it lacks specificity about what 'configuration' encompasses (global settings vs. repo-specific settings).
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. While it's a simple getter with no parameters, explicit guidance on when inspection is appropriate would help agent selection.
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?
Since no annotations exist, description carries full burden. It discloses return structure (label, path, type, visibility) which compensates partially for missing output schema. However, it omits safety characteristics (read-only), error conditions, or performance traits.
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?
Single, efficient sentence of 10 words. Front-loaded with verb 'List', every word earns its place by describing both the action and the specific fields returned.
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?
For a zero-parameter tool, the description is reasonably complete. It compensates for the missing output schema by enumerating the returned fields (label, path, type, visibility). Could be improved by noting the read-only/safe nature of the operation.
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?
Input schema has zero parameters, establishing a baseline of 4. The description appropriately does not attempt to add parameter semantics where none exist.
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?
States specific action ('List') and resource ('configured repos') clearly, including scope ('all'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_config_info or check_repo_branch.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_config_info or check_repo_branch. No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses filtering behavior (respects enabled flag and showReferenceRepos toggle) but fails to confirm read-only safety, disclose error handling for unconfigured repos, or describe the return data structure.
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 consists of two efficient sentences with zero redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose (returning current git branches), while the second sentence adds behavioral modifiers (filtering logic). Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers the conceptual return value (current branches) and filtering logic. However, it lacks return format details (array vs object structure) and safety confirmations that would be expected given the absence of structured metadata.
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 input schema has 0 parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4 per evaluation rules. The description references configuration toggles (enabled flag, showReferenceRepos) that affect behavior, adding useful context about implicit filtering parameters without violating the zero-parameter constraint.
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 the tool 'Return[s] the current git branch for every configured repo,' providing specific verb, resource, and scope. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like list_repos (which likely lists repo configurations without git status) and check_repo_branch (which likely checks specific branches rather than returning current state for all repos), though it could explicitly differentiate from the latter.
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 mentions that the tool 'Respects the enabled flag and showReferenceRepos toggle,' implying filtering behavior and indirectly referencing sibling toggle_reference_repos. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus check_repo_branch or list_repos, or prerequisites like requiring configured repos.
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. Adds valuable behavioral context beyond the schema by explaining the consequence of disabling (status line script outputs nothing). However, lacks details on persistence (session vs permanent), scope (user vs system-wide), or idempotency that would fully characterize 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action ('Enable or disable the entire status bar') followed immediately by behavioral consequence. Every word earns its place; no redundancy with schema or name.
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 boolean parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the functionality and immediate side effects. For a basic toggle tool, explaining the disabled state behavior is sufficient, though additional context about persistence or integration with other status-related tools would be ideal.
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 clear parameter description ('true = enable, false = disable'). The description references 'Enable or disable' which aligns with the parameter semantics, but doesn't add syntax details, examples, or validation rules beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.
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?
States specific action (enable/disable) on specific resource (entire status bar). Implicitly distinguishes from repo-focused siblings (add_repo, list_repos, etc.) by addressing UI configuration rather than repository management, though it doesn't explicitly clarify the distinction from sibling `toggle_reference_repos`.
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?
Provides implicit usage guidance through behavioral description ('When disabled the status line script outputs nothing'), helping the agent understand the effect of disabling. However, lacks explicit 'when to use' criteria, prerequisites, or comparison to alternatives like `toggle_reference_repos`.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden but only discloses the basic action. It omits important behavioral details: whether changes persist across sessions, if the operation validates the git repo, error handling for invalid paths, and whether duplicate adds are idempotent.
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 zero waste: first establishes purpose, second provides critical constraint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler content.
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 4-parameter state-modifying tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action and path constraint. However, it lacks completeness regarding side effects, persistence model, and relationship to validation utilities given the mutation nature of the operation.
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?
While schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), the description adds valuable semantic specificity beyond the schema: it emphasizes 'root' (indicating subdirectories won't work) and 'filesystem' (clarifying not a URL), enhancing understanding of the path parameter requirements.
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 specific action (add), resource (repository), and destination (status bar). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like remove_repo, list_repos, and validate_repo_path by specifying the 'add' operation.
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 provides a critical usage constraint (path must be absolute filesystem path to git repo root), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus validate_repo_path or prerequisites for the path parameter.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It identifies the UI component affected (status bar) but omits critical behavioral details: whether the setting persists across sessions, if it affects other users/workspace members, or what the operation returns. The 'Show or hide' phrasing slightly conflicts with the imperative name 'toggle' and boolean parameter 'show', though this is minor.
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?
Extremely efficient at 11 words. The single sentence front-loads the action verbs and every word earns its place. No redundancy or boilerplate.
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?
For a single-parameter configuration tool without output schema, the description covers the essential functionality. Minor gaps remain regarding persistence and side effects, but given the low complexity, the description is sufficiently complete for agent operation.
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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by defining 'reference' repos and connecting the parameter to the status bar context. The schema's parameter description ('true = include reference repos, false = active repos only') clarifies the boolean semantics, and the main description reinforces this by specifying repos 'marked as type reference'.
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 specific action (show/hide), target resource (repos of type 'reference'), and location/context (status bar). It effectively distinguishes from sibling 'toggle_statusbar' (which likely controls the entire bar) and 'list_repos' (which retrieves data rather than configuring display).
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 through the reference vs. active repo distinction (mirrored in the parameter description), but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to alternatives like 'list_repos'. Agents must infer when this display configuration is appropriate.
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:

[![claude-plugin MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/agenticbits/claude-plugin/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/agenticbits/claude-plugin)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![claude-plugin MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/agenticbits/claude-plugin/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/agenticbits/claude-plugin)

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/agenticbits/claude-plugin'

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