Skip to main content
Glama
anisha-agarwal

git-standup-mcp

by anisha-agarwal
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: git_repos lists available repositories, while git_standup generates activity reports. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection unambiguous for an agent.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent snake_case naming pattern with the 'git_' prefix, maintaining perfect naming consistency throughout the set. This predictability aids agent understanding and usage.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels under-scoped for its apparent domain of git activity reporting. While the tools cover core functionality, the lack of additional operations (e.g., configuration management, filtering options as separate tools) makes the surface thin and potentially limiting.

    Completeness3/5

    The server covers the basic workflow of listing repos and generating standup reports, but there are notable gaps. Missing operations include managing git-standup configurations, handling repo exclusions, or providing detailed commit analytics, which could hinder more complex agent tasks.

  • Average 3.3/5 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. It states the tool lists repos, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what 'can see' entails (e.g., local vs. remote repos). The description is too vague to fully inform the agent about behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

    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 directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and scope, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information.

    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 has no parameters, an output schema exists, and no annotations are provided, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral context (e.g., how 'can see' is defined) and doesn't leverage the output schema to clarify return values. For a simple list tool, it's functional but could be more informative about the output or constraints.

    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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented because none exist. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no inputs are required by not mentioning any. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as the description doesn't mislead about inputs.

    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 action ('List all git repos') and the scope ('that git-standup can see'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'git_standup', which appears to be a related but distinct functionality. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

    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 minimal guidance by implying usage when needing to list repos visible to git-standup, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus the sibling 'git_standup' or any alternatives. There's no explicit context, exclusions, or prerequisites mentioned, leaving the agent with little guidance on appropriate usage scenarios.

    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 describes the tool as a read operation ('Get a standup report'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover other important aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (though an output schema exists). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-point list of parameters with concise explanations. Every sentence earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the main functionality. There's no redundant or verbose language, making it easy to parse quickly.

    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, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately. Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values, and it provides enough context for basic use, though it lacks guidance on usage scenarios and some behavioral details.

    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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well by explaining each parameter's purpose and default values in the 'Args' section. It clarifies that 'days' is the lookback period, 'author' filters by partial name match, and 'repos' specifies paths with fallback to environment variables or default directories. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could benefit from examples or format details.

    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: 'Get a standup report of recent git activity across your repos.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('standup report'), and scope ('across your repos'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'git_repos', which might also involve git repository operations.

    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 'git_repos'. It mentions default behaviors (e.g., using environment variables or default paths) but doesn't explain scenarios where this tool is preferred or when other tools might be more appropriate, leaving the agent without clear usage context.

    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

git-standup-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

git-standup-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/anisha-agarwal/git-standup-mcp'

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