mcp-roadmapsh

by aissablk1

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: v0.2.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource type or action: list tools are clearly separated by resource (projects, roadmaps, best-practices, questions, videos), and roadmap_get, roadmap_topic, roadmap_export, and roadmap_search each serve unique purposes. Even the progress tools are distinct (mark, status, next).
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a noun_verb pattern (e.g., projects_list, roadmap_get, best_practices_get). However, a few deviate: roadmap_topic uses a noun, progress_status and progress_next are noun_noun/noun_adjective. Overall, the pattern is mostly consistent with minor exceptions.
Tool Count4/5
With 16 tools, the count slightly exceeds the typical 15-tool high-water mark, but the server covers multiple content domains (roadmaps, best practices, questions, projects, videos) plus progress tracking, so each tool earns its place. The scope justifies the number.
Completeness4/5
The surface provides list and get operations for all resource types, plus roadmap-specific features (topic retrieval, export, search) and progress tracking. Minor gaps exist: no per-topic content tool for best practices, and search is limited to slugs rather than full content, but these are workable.
Average 4/5 across 16 of 16 tools scored. Lowest: 3.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 7 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on June 4, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return value ('counts and completion percent') and the notion of 'local' progress, which is useful context but not elaborated upon. No contradiction with annotations.
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 concise sentence that immediately communicates the core function. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity—one fully documented parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema—the description adequately covers the return value and purpose. The term 'local' is somewhat ambiguous but not enough to significantly hinder understanding.
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 provides a full description for the 'roadmap' parameter, including an example, resulting in 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 gets progress for a roadmap, specifying output as counts and completion percent. It uses the specific verb 'Get' and names the resource, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like progress_next or progress_mark.
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. The description simply states what it does without contextual cues or exclusions, 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 mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that the output can be an outline or raw graph, which hints at response format variability, but does not explain what 'raw graph' entails or any other behavioral caveats. It is consistent with annotations.
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 with clear front-loaded verb and resource, and a parenthetical that captures the format options without waste. It is highly efficient and well-structured.
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 straightforward read-only retrieval tool, the description covers the essential usage: provide a slug and optionally choose format. It is sufficiently complete given the annotations and schema, though the 'raw graph' term might be underspecified for new users. No output schema exists, so no need to describe return values.
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 schema already describes slug with an example, and format's enum values are self-explanatory. The description reinforces that slug is the lookup key and format selects outline vs raw, but it does not elaborate on the meaning of those formats. With 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but does not add significant depth.
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 verb 'Get', the resource 'best-practice guide', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like best_practices_list (for listing all) and roadmap_get (for roadmaps). The mention of slug and format options makes the tool's specific purpose unambiguous.
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 the tool is for fetching a specific guide by slug, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like best_practices_list or provide when-to-use guidance. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so the guidance is only implicit rather than explicit.
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 non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the useful detail that progress is stored locally, which gives some context about persistence, but it does not disclose how repeated calls behave (e.g., overwrite vs. append) or whether any authentication or special states are required. This is acceptable 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 delivers the core action, targets, and storage location with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately comprehensible.
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 low-complexity tool (4 simple params, no output schema) with annotations already covering safety, the description provides the essential purpose and scope. It misses guidance on parameter details and when to use the tool, but given the simple nature and sibling context, it is largely sufficient.
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 only 25% (only 'roadmap' has a description). The description partially compensates by stating the status values (matching the enum) and implying 'roadmap topic' corresponds to nodeId. However, it does not clarify the 'label' parameter, and the schema itself leaves label and nodeId semantically underspecified. The description adds some meaning but not enough to fully cover the gaps.
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 specifies a clear verb ('mark') and resource ('roadmap topic'), and uniquely identifies the action by enumerating the valid statuses (learning, done, skip). It distinguishes this tool from sibling progress tools (progress_status, progress_next) by focusing on the mutation/update action rather than reading or suggesting.
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 for updating progress on a roadmap topic, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like progress_status or progress_next. No exclusion criteria or sibling references are provided, though context suggests it is for recording progress rather than viewing it.
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 the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to re-explain safety. It adds 'based on local progress', which indicates it reads some local state, but it does not describe how progress is obtained, what happens with no progress, or the format of the recommendation. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is acceptable but not rich in additional behavioral context.
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 that states the action, resource, and context without any wasted words. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized.
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 low complexity (one parameter), rich annotations, and lack of an output schema, the description provides a clear general outcome. However, it does not explain what the recommender returns (e.g., a topic object, a title) or how 'unlearned' is determined. This is a minor gap, but overall the description is sufficiently complete for its simplicity.
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 only parameter ('roadmap' with slug pattern and example). The description adds no additional meaning beyond mentioning 'roadmap' in prose. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.
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 ('Recommend') and clearly identifies the resource ('next unlearned topic for a roadmap') and context ('based on local progress'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like progress_status (which likely shows status) and progress_mark (which likely records progress).
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 the tool should be used when a user wants to know what to learn next on a roadmap given existing progress. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like progress_status or roadmap_diagnose, nor does it name any excluded scenarios. This is adequate but not explicit guidance.
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 readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds that the return format is markdown, which is useful, but does not disclose other behavioral details such as error handling or empty results. This meets the baseline with some added value.
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 that immediately communicates the action, resource, and required contextual input. Every word is essential, and there is no wasted information.
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 simple tool with one well-documented parameter and rich annotations, the description sufficiently covers the core purpose and return format. It does not explain edge cases like invalid slugs or network issues, but such details are reasonably expected from the schema and 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?
The schema has 100% parameter description coverage, including a pattern and example, so the description does not need to add param details. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already carries the meaning effectively.
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 ('get'), identifies the resource ('interview questions markdown'), and specifies the input ('question-group slug'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like questions_list, which presumably lists groups rather than retrieving a specific one.
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: it is for fetching the markdown for a specific known slug. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over questions_list or provide any exclusion criteria, leaving the usage context to be inferred.
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 a safe, read-only operation. The description adds the return format ('markdown brief'), which is useful since there is no output schema. However, it does not disclose behavior on missing slugs or other edge cases.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's action, resource, and input method.
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 simple get-by-slug operation with strong annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It communicates the purpose and return format, though a note on not-found behavior would be a minor improvement.
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 parameter documentation, including the slug pattern. The description's 'by slug' reinforces the parameter but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 verb 'Get', the resource 'markdown brief for one practice project', and the method 'by slug'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like projects_list by focusing on a single project's brief.
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 phrase 'by slug' implies that the user must already have a specific project slug, providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like projects_list, but the prerequisite is evident.
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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that the return value is slugs, but does not discuss ordering, pagination, or potential rate limits. This is acceptable given the annotations but not rich.
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, concise sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It communicates that the output consists of slugs, which is sufficient for basic usage, though it could mention sorting or format details.
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 is fully covered (100%) by the empty properties object. The description therefore does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for no parameters is 4.
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 (List) and resource (practice-project slugs). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like project_get (which retrieves a single project) and other list tools by specifying the exact resource type.
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?
No explicit usage guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The intended use is implied by the name and description, but there is no discussion of when to choose this over other list tools or when not to use it.
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 safety profile is covered. The description adds 'all interview question-group slugs' as output scope, but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or error 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and scope.
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 list tool with rich annotations, the description fully states the output type ('slugs') and scope ('all'). It could mention ordering or pagination, but the simplicity of the tool makes the description largely sufficient.
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, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces that the tool returns 'all' slugs, implying no filtering or input, which adds meaningful clarity beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all interview question-group slugs'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like questions_get, which retrieves a specific question group. The scope is unambiguous.
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 the tool is used to list all slugs, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as questions_get or any exclusions. Sibling names provide context, but the description itself offers no direct guidance.
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, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return format (markdown content and curated links) but reveals no further behavioral details such as authentication or error semantics. Like the get_calls example, annotations lower the burden, so a 3 is appropriate.
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, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no extraneous content or repetitive wording.
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 read-only tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (markdown content and curated links) and how to select the topic. The required slug parameter is not mentioned in the description, but the schema covers it, and the parenthetical clarifies that nodeId/query are for topic selection within a roadmap. This is adequate, though a mention of slug would make it fully 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 each parameter (slug, query, nodeId) already described in the input schema. The description's parenthetical 'by nodeId from the outline, or by query' adds minimal interpretive context but is largely redundant with the schema. No significant new meaning is provided.
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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'markdown content and curated links for one topic of a roadmap', clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like roadmap_get (which likely retrieves full roadmaps) and roadmap_search. It also clarifies topic identification via nodeId or query, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
Provides clear guidance on when to use this tool (to retrieve a single topic's content) and how to identify the topic ('by nodeId from the outline, or by query'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not scenarios, but the context is sufficient given sibling tool names.
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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope 'all' (no filtering) but does not elaborate on pagination, ordering, or response format. This is minimal added context beyond annotations.
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, clean sentence that fully captures the tool's purpose without unnecessary verbs or filler. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless, read-only list tool with complete annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It states exactly what the tool returns (slugs) and its scope (all). No additional context is needed for correct invocation.
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?
There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly implies no input is needed, matching the empty schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.
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 and resource: 'List all best-practice slugs.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like best_practices_get (which retrieves a single item) and other list tools by specifying the exact scope and output (slugs).
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 (when you want all best-practice slugs) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like best_practices_get or roadmap_list. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions, leaving the context to be inferred from the verb 'list'.
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 and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the output is video resource slugs, which is useful but minimal. No mention of pagination or edge cases, but the simplicity and annotation coverage make it acceptable.
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?
A single, precise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and output format without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless, read-only list operation with comprehensive annotations, the description fully covers the tool's behavior and return value. No output schema exists, but the description is sufficient.
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, so there is nothing to describe. The description does not need to add parameter semantics; the baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'all video resource slugs.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that list other resource types (e.g., projects_list, questions_list) by focusing solely on videos.
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 states the tool's function but provides no explicit usage guidance or alternatives. Since there is no sibling tool for videos, the context is implied rather than clearly articulated.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds specific context about what is checked (roadmap.sh, GitHub, cache/state), which goes beyond the annotation flags, though it does not detail output format or potential side effects beyond 'report status'. No contradictions with annotations.
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 clear sentence, front-loaded with the main action ('Check connectivity') and no filler. Every word contributes meaning.
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 has no parameters and a simple diagnostic purpose, the description covers essential invocation intent. It reports connectivity and cache/state status, though it leaves the exact nature of 'status' unspecified. Annotations cover read-only safety, so completeness is adequate for a low-complexity 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 and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the parameter space. Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description needs no further param detail and adds none, which 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 a specific action: 'Check connectivity to roadmap.sh and GitHub, and report cache/state status.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like roadmap_list or roadmap_get, which fetch data rather than diagnose connectivity.
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 a diagnostic purpose (checking connectivity and cache/state) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage guidance is therefore only implied, not articulated.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds behavioral context by stating the output is a single concatenated markdown document and that includeContent=false yields structure only, which is useful beyond what annotations provide.
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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Two sentences with no redundant phrases. It efficiently communicates the tool's function and key parameter behaviors without wasting words.
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 read-only export tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the output format and key options. It could explicitly mention when to use this instead of related tools, but given the sibling context, the 'entire roadmap' phrasing is adequate.
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 the schema already explains all four parameters. The description's mention of includeContent and maxTopics essentially repeats the schema descriptions without adding new semantic details. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description doesn't provide value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Export'), resource ('an entire roadmap'), and output form ('a single markdown document'). It also explains the concatenation of all topics' content, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like roadmap_get or roadmap_topic that likely return single items.
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 this tool ('Export an entire roadmap') and provides conditional usage for parameters ('includeContent=false returns structure only; maxTopics caps the count'). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a perfect 5, but the context is clear.
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 the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the scope enumeration and keyword search intent, but does not detail return format, pagination, or result limits. This is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage, but not exceptional.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It includes the scope list inline, avoiding unnecessary verbiage. Every word contributes to understanding.
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 simple search operation, rich annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose and scope options. It could mention return behavior, but the lack of output schema and the straightforward nature of search make this a minor gap.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'query' is the keyword and 'scope' limits to one of the listed categories, providing essential meaning not inferable from the bare schema. It doesn't discuss constraints like maxLength or default, but the core semantics are covered.
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 searches roadmap.sh slugs by keyword, with a specific verb and resource. It also enumerates the scope options, distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve or list specific resources (e.g., roadmap_get, roadmap_list).
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 provides clear context by indicating the tool is for keyword-based search within defined scopes. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the scope options and sibling tool names imply it should be used when you need to find a slug by keyword rather than using a direct getter or list operation.
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 the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the detail that slugs are role-based and skill-based, which is useful context. However, it does not describe return format, ordering, or whether the list is live (open world), though annotations partially cover the safety profile.
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 that conveys all essential information without redundancy. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema) and the robust annotations, the description is complete enough. It states the core functionality and the nature of the returned items, allowing an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description doesn't need to explain any inputs, and the baseline of 4 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 'List' and identifies the resource as 'all available roadmap slugs' with an additional qualifier 'role-based and skill-based' that distinguishes it from sibling road map tools like roadmap_get or roadmap_search.
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 clearly implies its use case: retrieving the complete set of roadmap slugs. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the clarity of the purpose provides enough context for an agent to select this tool over sibling list tools or roadmap-specific lookups.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and no destructive action. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that format=outline returns a readable topic plan with node ids and format=raw returns the full graph JSON, going beyond the annotations.
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 fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded ('Get a roadmap by slug'), followed by the two format options. Every word 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?
For a simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and output formats. It does not explain potential errors or edge cases, but the annotations and simplicity make this adequate.
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 description coverage is 50% (slug has a description, format does not). The description compensates by explaining the meaning and effect of the format parameter's enum values. It does not add much for slug, but the schema already provides an example.
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 verb and resource: 'Get a roadmap by slug', which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like roadmap_list or roadmap_search. It also differentiates two output formats, adding scope and making it unambiguous.
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 the tool: when you have a slug and need either a readable outline or raw graph JSON. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives compared to siblings, but the context is 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.

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:

[![mcp-roadmapsh MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aissablk1/mcp-roadmapsh/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aissablk1/mcp-roadmapsh)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-roadmapsh MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aissablk1/mcp-roadmapsh/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aissablk1/mcp-roadmapsh)

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/aissablk1/mcp-roadmapsh'

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