Skip to main content
Glama
anilsharmay

Country Explorer MCP Server

by anilsharmay
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

42%
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 ambiguity: roll_dice is for dice rolling, unsplash_search is for photo searches, and web_search is for general web searches. The domains are completely separate, making misselection unlikely.

    Naming Consistency2/5

    The naming is inconsistent with mixed conventions: roll_dice uses snake_case, unsplash_search uses snake_case, and web_search uses snake_case, but the verb styles vary (roll vs. search). There is no predictable pattern like verb_noun consistency across tools.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 3 tools, the set feels thin for a server named 'Country Explorer MCP Server', which suggests a domain focused on country-related exploration. The tools do not align with this purpose, indicating a significant mismatch in scope.

    Completeness1/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for the stated purpose of country exploration. There are no tools for retrieving country data, demographics, maps, or other relevant information, leaving obvious gaps that will cause agent failures in this domain.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (roll dice) but doesn't describe what the tool returns, how it handles errors, or any constraints (e.g., valid notation formats, limits on num_rolls). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

    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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

    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 low complexity and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on parameter semantics and behavioral traits. It covers the basic purpose but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations and low schema coverage.

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

    Parameters2/5

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

    Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'given notation' for the 'notation' parameter but doesn't explain what dice notation entails (e.g., '2d6' for two six-sided dice). The 'num_rolls' parameter isn't addressed at all. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.

    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 'Roll the dice with the given notation' states a clear action (roll) and resource (dice), but it's vague about what 'given notation' means. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools (unsplash_search, web_search), which is reasonable since they're unrelated, but the purpose remains somewhat ambiguous without explaining dice notation.

    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. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone. This lack of explicit or implied guidance reduces its effectiveness.

    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?

    With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, result format, or other traits like pagination or safety considerations.

    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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded for clarity.

    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 (searching the web), no annotations, and an output schema that likely handles return values, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on usage, parameters, and behavioral aspects, but the output schema may mitigate some gaps.

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

    Parameters2/5

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

    Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds minimal meaning. It mentions 'query' but doesn't explain what constitutes a valid query, examples, or constraints beyond the schema's basic type.

    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 ('search') and resource ('the web'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'unsplash_search' which might also search but for specific content, so it's not fully distinguished.

    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 like 'unsplash_search' or other search methods. The description implies general web searching but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

    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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the basic action but lacks critical details: no mention of rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

    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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

    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, search functionality) and the existence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally complete. However, with no annotations and poor parameter documentation, it leaves gaps in behavioral understanding and parameter usage that could hinder effective tool selection.

    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 0%, so parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'using the given query' which only addresses one of three parameters (query, num_results, orientation). It doesn't explain what num_results controls or what orientation values are acceptable. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's parameter names.

    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 ('Search') and resource ('photos on Unsplash'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'roll_dice' and 'web_search' by specifying the Unsplash photo domain. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential alternative photo search tools beyond the Unsplash context.

    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 it's clearly for searching Unsplash photos, there's no mention of when to choose this over 'web_search' (which might also find photos) or other hypothetical photo sources. No prerequisites, limitations, or comparative context is provided.

    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-demo MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-demo 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/anilsharmay/mcp-demo'

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