Skip to main content
Glama
andrijdavid

Bazos-MCP

by andrijdavid
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.3

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: searching ads, getting ad details, and retrieving user ratings. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (search_ads, get_ad_detail, get_user_ratings), making them predictable and easy to understand.

    Tool Count4/5

    Three tools is slightly below average but reasonable for a focused read-only classified ads interface. The scope is appropriate, though a few more tools (e.g., list categories) could be added.

    Completeness4/5

    The toolset covers the core browsing workflow—search, detail view, and user ratings. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit category listing or filtering), but the set is functional for typical use cases.

  • Average 3.3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 3 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 AGPL 3.0.

  • 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 present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic function, omitting details like authentication, rate limits, data freshness, or that it returns a list of ratings. Schema covers pagination, but description adds no behavioral context.

    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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it lacks structure (e.g., no mention of return format or example usage). It is efficient but could be slightly enhanced.

    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?

    Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should compensate by explaining what 'ratings' are, how domain affects results, and the behavior when multiple filters are combined. It fails to provide this context, leaving gaps for agent understanding.

    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 descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, only implying that phone and email are filter criteria. 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'user ratings', and specifies filtering by phone ID and/or email ID. It is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools which are about ads.

    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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states what it does, without any context on prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions.

    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 present, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation without side effects, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or that the tool is read-only. This is minimally sufficient for a simple getter.

    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 is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Every word is relevant.

    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?

    With only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but could be improved by specifying what 'detailed information' includes. Missing context about return structure or differences from sibling search_ads.

    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 has 100% description coverage, providing clear meanings for ad_id and domain. The description adds no extra value beyond the schema, therefore 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 'Get detailed information about a specific ad by its ID.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'ad detail' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_ads (searching) and get_user_ratings (ratings), though it could be more explicit about the scope.

    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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or that search_ads might be preferred for listing.

    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 full burden but only states basic behavior (returns list of ads). It lacks details on pagination, sort behavior, error handling, or rate limits. Schema parameters hint at pagination and sorting but description does not clarify.

    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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and scope. No wasted words, efficient communication.

    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 parameter count (10) and no output schema or annotations, the description is minimal. It explains the general behavior but lacks details on return values, pagination behavior, and how to use parameters effectively. Adequate but incomplete for complex usage.

    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 descriptions for all 10 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, 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 tool searches ads on specific domains (Bazos.cz, .sk, .at, .pl) and returns a list of matching ads. It distinguishes itself from siblings (get_ad_detail, get_user_ratings) by focusing on search across multiple domains.

    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 searching ads but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_ad_detail or get_user_ratings. No exclusion criteria or context for choosing between tools.

    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

bazos-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

bazos-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/andrijdavid/bazos-mcp'

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