Skip to main content
Glama
ampcome-mcps

Chargebee MCP Server

by ampcome-mcps
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: chargebee_code_planner is for implementation/code generation questions, while chargebee_documentation_search is for general documentation queries. The descriptions explicitly differentiate them with clear boundaries and usage instructions, leaving no room for confusion.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent naming pattern: 'chargebee_' prefix followed by a descriptive compound noun (code_planner, documentation_search). The naming is uniform, predictable, and clearly indicates the tool's function without mixing conventions.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels severely under-scoped for a comprehensive Chargebee integration domain. While the tools cover documentation and code planning, there are no direct operational tools for CRUD actions on subscriptions, customers, or invoices, which are core to billing systems.

    Completeness2/5

    The toolset is incomplete for a Chargebee integration server. It lacks essential CRUD operations (e.g., create_subscription, update_customer, list_invoices) and lifecycle management tools, forcing agents to rely solely on generated code rather than direct API interactions. This creates significant gaps for automated workflows.

  • Average 3.8/5 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
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states the tool 'generates an integration workflow along with the code snippets,' it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output takes, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or any potential side effects. For a code generation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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

    Conciseness3/5

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

    The description is reasonably structured with clear paragraphs, but contains some redundancy and could be more concise. The first two sentences convey similar information about when to use the tool. The parameter listing repeats information already in the schema. While it's not excessively verbose, some sentences don't earn their place by adding unique value beyond what's already stated.

    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 that this is a code generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about when to use it and what it does, but lacks important behavioral details. It doesn't describe the output format, error conditions, or operational constraints. For a tool that generates code workflows, users need to understand what kind of output to expect, which isn't addressed.

    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 fully documents both parameters. The description repeats the parameter names and provides essentially the same information as the schema descriptions ('What is the user's goal?' and 'Programming language the code to be generated in'). It adds no additional semantic context beyond what's already in the structured schema fields, 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's purpose: 'generates an integration workflow along with the code snippets' for Chargebee integration questions. It specifies the resource (Chargebee integration) and verb (generates code/workflow). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'chargebee_documentation_search' - while it mentions this is for 'implementation needs' versus presumably documentation search, the distinction isn't made explicit.

    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?

    The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this tool for any Chargebee integration questions or implementation needs' and 'Always use this tool to get the accurate integration code guide for Chargebee.' It gives specific examples of when to use it ('how to update billing address', 'how to create subscription', etc.) and positions it as 'the main tool developers need' for implementation questions, clearly establishing its primary role.

    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 full burden. It describes the tool's scope and limitations well but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination, or error handling. The description doesn't contradict any 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with critical usage guidance. However, it contains some redundancy (repeating 'NOT for implementation questions' twice) and could be more tightly structured. Most sentences earn their place by providing distinct guidance.

    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 (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides good contextual coverage of purpose, usage boundaries, and parameter overview. It lacks details about return values and behavioral characteristics, but the clear scope definition compensates reasonably well.

    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 documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description lists the parameters but adds minimal semantic value beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

    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 Chargebee documentation for general product queries, distinguishing it from the sibling 'chargebee_code_planner' tool. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'Chargebee documentation' with explicit scope limitations.

    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?

    The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('general product documentation queries') and when not to use it ('NOT for implementation questions'), with a clear alternative named ('chargebee_code_planner'). It includes both positive use cases and exclusions.

    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

chargebee-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

chargebee-mcp 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/ampcome-mcps/chargebee-mcp'

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