Skip to main content
Glama
akritiAgrawal27

MCP Chat

by akritiAgrawal27
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool handles a distinct operation: one reads document contents, the other edits by replacing a string. There is no overlap or ambiguity, so an agent can easily choose the correct tool based on the desired action.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tools follow a verb_noun pattern with snake_case (read_doc_contents, edit_document), which is consistent. However, one uses the abbreviation 'doc' while the other uses the full word 'document', creating a minor inconsistency in naming style.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server feels very thin. The tools are fundamental but the count is borderline, offering minimal functionality for a document-focused server.

    Completeness3/5

    The set covers read and edit operations, but lacks create, delete, list, or search capabilities. These are notable gaps that could prevent agents from completing common document management workflows.

  • Average 3.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 2 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

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • 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. It only states the replace action without explaining what happens if old_string is not found, whether all occurrences are replaced, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single sentence that directly states the function with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and appropriate for a simple tool.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must explain behavior on its own. It lacks critical details such as error handling, replacement scope (first vs. all occurrences), and reversibility, making it incomplete for confident invocation.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The input schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (doc_id, old_string, new_string) at 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already states, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description uses a specific verb ('Edit') and names the resource (document) plus the action (replacing a string), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling read_doc_contents. This is a precise, non-tautological statement of purpose.

    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 usage for modifying document content (as opposed to reading), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or name the alternative read_doc_contents, so it stops short of full 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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads and returns a string, which is a non-mutating operation. However, it omits behaviors such as error handling if the document is missing, access requirements, or any size limitations. This is adequate but lacks detail.

    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 that directly states the purpose and return type. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly concise 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?

    For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior (read and return string) and the schema covers the parameter. It is mostly complete, though it would be slightly better with error-handling context. The simplicity of the tool lowers the burden, so a 4 is justified.

    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 already provides a description and example for 'doc_id' (100% coverage). The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('document') and clearly states the return type ('string'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'edit_document' by indicating a read-only operation, so the purpose 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 usage when one wants to view a document's contents, and the sibling name 'edit_document' suggests the alternative when modification is needed. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives, so the guidance is implied rather than stated.

    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

mcp_cli_chatbot MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp_cli_chatbot 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/akritiAgrawal27/mcp_cli_chatbot'

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