aleostudio MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: calculate handles math operations, convert_data transforms data formats, fetch_url performs HTTP requests, get_datetime retrieves time information, and process_text manipulates text. The descriptions clearly differentiate their domains, making misselection unlikely.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (calculate, convert_data, fetch_url, get_datetime, process_text). The naming is uniform and predictable throughout the set, with no mixing of conventions or styles.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, this server is well-scoped for a utility toolkit. Each tool serves a distinct and useful function, and the count is appropriate for covering basic operations without being overly sparse or bloated.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers a broad range of utility operations (math, data conversion, HTTP, datetime, text processing) with no obvious major gaps. Minor gaps might include more advanced HTTP methods (e.g., POST) or additional data formats, but the surface is largely complete for general-purpose tasks.
Average 3.4/5 across 5 of 5 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
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'various operations' and lists them in the Args section, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether operations are read-only or mutating, performance characteristics, error handling, or rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context for a tool with multiple operations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns). The first sentence is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the 'Args' section could be more integrated with the description rather than appearing as separate documentation, and the 'Handle text with various operations' opening is somewhat generic.
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 3 parameters with 0% schema description coverage but an output schema exists, the description provides adequate parameter information but lacks behavioral context. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but for a tool with multiple operations and no annotations, more guidance about operation selection and behavioral characteristics would improve completeness.
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 description provides significant parameter semantics beyond the schema. While schema description coverage is 0%, the Args section explicitly lists all 9 possible operations for the 'operation' parameter and explains the purpose of 'text' and 'options' parameters. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't detail what 'options' might contain for specific operations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Handle text with various operations' which provides a general purpose but is vague about what specific operations are available. It mentions 'text' as the resource but doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'calculate' or 'convert_data' that might also handle text. The verb 'handle' is generic rather than specific.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or comparison with sibling tools like 'calculate' or 'convert_data'. There's no indication of when specific operations should be chosen or what context makes this tool appropriate.
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. It mentions 'Returns: Operation result with details' which gives some behavioral context about output, but doesn't cover important aspects like error handling (e.g., division by zero), precision limitations, rate limits, or authentication requirements for a calculation service.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loaded purpose statement. Every sentence earns its place, though the 'Returns' statement could be slightly more specific about what 'details' includes.
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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, basic math operations) and the presence of an output schema (which should document return values), the description is reasonably complete for core functionality. However, it lacks important context about error cases, limitations, and behavioral expectations that would be needed for robust agent usage.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by documenting all three parameters with clear semantics: operation types (add, subtract, multiply, divide, power) and operand roles (first and second). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't provide format details like whether 'power' means exponentiation.
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's purpose as 'Execute basic math operation' with specific operations listed in the Args section. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like convert_data or process_text by focusing on mathematical calculations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential mathematical siblings that might not exist in this set.
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. While the sibling tools have different domains (data conversion, URL fetching, datetime operations, text processing), there's no explicit comparison or context about when mathematical calculation is appropriate versus other operations.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions conversion behavior but lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid formats), performance characteristics, or side effects. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations, leaving behavioral traits unclear.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then lists args and returns in a structured format. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately, and the output schema handles return values, but it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details. For a conversion tool with no annotations, more context on errors or limitations would improve completeness.
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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose ('data to convert', 'source format', 'destination format') and lists valid format options (json, base64, hex). This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail format-specific requirements or constraints.
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's purpose: 'Convert data in different formats.' This specifies the verb ('convert') and resource ('data'), though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'process_text' which might also handle data transformation. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
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 like 'process_text' or other siblings. It lists parameters and returns but offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied through parameter descriptions but not explicitly stated.
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 explains the tool returns current date/time with configurable format, which covers the basic behavior, but doesn't mention performance characteristics, error conditions, or whether it requires external resources. The description doesn't contradict annotations since none exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns, and every sentence serves a purpose. It could be slightly more concise by combining some elements, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded with the core functionality.
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 moderate complexity, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description provides adequate context. It explains parameters thoroughly and states the return purpose, though it could benefit from more behavioral context about edge cases or limitations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains what 'timezone_offset' represents (UTC offset in hours with valid range) and what 'format_type' controls (output format with specific options like iso, human, unix, components), providing crucial semantic context that the schema alone lacks.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current date/time'), plus it distinguishes its functionality from siblings by specifying configurable format options. It goes beyond a simple tautology by explaining what the tool actually does.
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 like 'calculate' or other siblings. It mentions configurable format but doesn't specify scenarios where one format would be preferred over another or when this tool is appropriate compared to other date/time operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies supported HTTP methods (GET, HEAD), mentions content truncation behavior, and describes the return format (status code, headers, content). It doesn't cover rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, but provides solid foundational information.
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 perfectly structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, with zero wasted words. The information is front-loaded and efficiently presented in just four lines.
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 moderate complexity (HTTP client), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides good coverage of purpose, parameters, and return behavior. It could benefit from mentioning security considerations or error scenarios, but covers the essential operational aspects adequately.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters: 'url' as 'URL to fetch' and 'method' as 'HTTP method (GET, HEAD)' with the default value implied. It adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could specify URL format requirements or method constraints more explicitly.
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 ('Execute HTTP requests') and target resource ('to external URLs'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like calculate or process_text. It uses precise technical terminology that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.
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 context through the mention of 'external URLs' and HTTP methods, suggesting this is for web requests rather than internal operations. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites for usage.
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-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aleostudio/mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aleostudio/mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/aleostudio/mcp-server'

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