Skip to main content
Glama
ajipurn

Fida

by ajipurn
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Rust
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.9

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: fida_read handles file reads, fida_shell handles command execution. There is no overlap in functionality.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent pattern: 'fida_' prefix + verb (read, shell). This is a predictable and uniform naming convention.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server is very minimal. While it may cover essential file read and shell execution, it feels thin for a security policy tool that could include more operations.

    Completeness2/5

    The server lacks write, delete, or policy management tools. For a policy-enforcing tool, there are notable gaps such as file writes or policy listing, which would be expected.

  • Average 4.3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 43 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • 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?

    No annotations provided, so description must disclose behaviors. It reveals that stdout/stderr are returned with secrets redacted, which is useful. However, it omits other important behaviors like error handling, exit codes, policy blocking details, or permission requirements. The description adds some value but is not comprehensive.

    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?

    Three concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core function, the second provides usage guidance, and the third describes output. Information is front-loaded and efficiently 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 simple tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, usage context, and return format (stdout/stderr with redacted secrets). It is missing details on error behavior and exit codes, but these are less critical. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

    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 both parameters (command and cwd). The description does not add any additional semantic information about the parameters 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?

    Description clearly states the tool runs a command through Fida policy and distinguishes it from native shell or non-Fida MCP tools. The verb 'run' and resource 'command through Fida policy' are specific, and it differentiates from the sibling fida_read.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines5/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    Explicitly tells when to use this tool (instead of native shell or non-Fida MCP shell tools) and why (so policy can gate the command). Provides clear guidance on alternatives.

    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 provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses two key behaviors: policy can block denied paths and secret values are redacted. This adds significant value beyond a simple read. Lacks details on return format or error handling, but acceptable for a simple 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 with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second provides usage guidance. Efficient and front-loaded.

    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 simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral traits. It mentions policy enforcement and redaction, which is contextual. Could be slightly more explicit about return type, but overall 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 coverage is 100% with a description for the 'path' parameter. The tool description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline of 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 it reads a file's text through Fida policy. It specifies the verb 'read' and resource 'file's text', and distinguishes it from sibling 'fida_shell' by indicating it is for file reads only.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines5/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    Explicitly says to use this tool for every file read ahead of native reads, workspace context, reviewed-file context, and other MCP file tools. Provides clear context on when to use and lists alternatives.

    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

fida MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

fida MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ajipurn/fida'

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