Skip to main content
Glama
annenpolka

roo-activity-logger

by annenpolka
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.2.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: listing log files, recording an activity, and searching logs. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_log_files, log_activity, search_logs), making them predictable and easy to understand.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools is an appropriate scope for an activity logger, covering the essential operations: listing available files, recording entries, and searching. Not too few or too many.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool surface covers the core activities of logging and retrieval, but lacks update/delete functionality or a way to view raw log file contents. Minor gap, but functional for basic use.

  • Average 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
    • 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 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?

    With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states basic purpose, omitting details on read-only nature, performance, authentication, or side effects, leaving significant gaps.

    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 a single sentence, concise but not optimally structured. It lacks front-loading of key information such as the required 'logsDir' parameter.

    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 15 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, pagination (limit/offset), or the hierarchy of activity relationships, which are crucial for proper tool usage.

    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 has 15 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'date ranges, text search, and activity relationships', which hints at some parameters (startDate, endDate, searchText, parentId, relatedId), but fails to explain most parameters or their format (e.g., logsDir, logFilePrefix, limit, offset). The compensation is insufficient.

    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 uses the verb 'search and filter' on 'activity logs', clearly stating the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools 'get_log_files' and 'log_activity', leaving some ambiguity.

    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 logs with criteria like date ranges and text search, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

    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, the description carries the transparency burden. It reveals pagination and filtering but omits important details such as ordering, error handling for invalid directories, or the structure of the returned list. The description is adequate but not thorough.

    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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded with key information. Every part contributes to the purpose, though it could be split for clarity. No wasted words.

    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?

    The description is insufficient for a tool with six parameters and no output schema. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or filtering mechanics. Given the complexity, more detail is needed to allow correct invocation.

    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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'specified directory' (matching 'logsDir') and 'filtering options' but does not elaborate on 'limit', 'offset', 'logFilePrefix', 'logFileExtension', or 'maxDepth'. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the 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 ('Get'), the resource ('available log files'), and key features ('paginated list', 'filtering options'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_logs' which implies searching content rather than listing files, and 'log_activity' which likely logs actions. However, it does not explicitly contrast with these tools.

    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 siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, directory existence requirements, or alternative tools for different use cases. The description is purely operational.

    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 full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether it appends or overwrites, permissions needed, error handling, or side effects.

    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 unnecessary words. However, it could be more structured to include key details without sacrificing conciseness.

    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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not cover return values, error conditions, or logging behavior, leaving the agent without critical context.

    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%, and the description does not elaborate on any of the 10 parameters. It lacks individual parameter explanations, which is a significant gap for a tool with many required fields.

    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?

    Description clearly states the tool records an activity log entry with structured data for tracking development activities, decisions, and context. It uses a specific verb and resource, and naturally distinguishes from sibling tools (get_log_files, search_logs) which are for retrieval.

    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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool, when not to, or mention alternatives. Usage is implied as the write counterpart to the read-focused siblings, but no direct guidance 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

roo-logger MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

roo-logger 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/annenpolka/roo-logger'

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