Skip to main content
Glama
ambivo-corp

Ambivo MCP Server

Official
by ambivo-corp
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.3

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one handles authentication setup, the other executes queries. No overlap or confusion possible.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools use consistent snake_case naming, and each name clearly indicates its function ('set_auth_token' for authentication, 'natural_query' for querying).

    Tool Count2/5

    Only 2 tools for a domain that involves multiple entities (leads, contacts, opportunities). This is insufficient to cover typical operations, though the natural_query tool may encapsulate many actions.

    Completeness1/5

    The server claims to handle leads, contacts, and opportunities, but provides no CRUD tools or entity-specific operations. A single query tool is severely incomplete for data management tasks.

  • 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
    • 0 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

  • 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 only states it processes queries and returns structured data, but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or behavior for ambiguous queries. This is insufficient for a tool that accepts free-form natural language.

    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 two sentences with no filler. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and parameter usage. Every sentence 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?

    Given the simple input schema (2 params) and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does and the parameters. However, it could mention the return format (e.g., JSON) or potential limitations, making it slightly incomplete.

    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% and includes examples. The description adds some context (e.g., listing entity types) but largely overlaps with the schema's parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance understanding 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 tool executes natural language queries against Ambivo entity data, specifying supported entities like leads, contacts, opportunities. It is specific and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'set_auth_token' which handles authentication.

    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 querying entity data) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Since there is only one sibling (auth token), the context is limited but could benefit from clarification.

    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 exist, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Set' with no details on whether the token overwrites, persists, or if there are validation checks. This is minimal disclosure 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?

    Two sentences, each serving a purpose: action and usage context. No extraneous wording, efficient and direct.

    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 a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the prerequisite nature and basic action. It could mention error behavior or state persistence, but overall it's 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 coverage is 100% and the description mirrors the schema's description of 'JWT Bearer token'. It adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already 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?

    The description clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'authentication token for API requests', and specifies it must be called before other tools, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'natural_query'.

    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?

    It explicitly states that this tool must be called before using other tools for authentication, providing clear context. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, but the prerequisite advice is strong enough for a 4.

    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

ambivo-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

ambivo-mcp-server 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/ambivo-corp/ambivo-mcp-server'

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