Skip to main content
Glama
arrismo

kaggle-mcp

by arrismo
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
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: one downloads a specific dataset, while the other searches for datasets. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to choose the correct tool for each task without confusion.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (download_kaggle_dataset and search_kaggle_datasets), using snake_case and clear action verbs. This consistency makes the tool set predictable and easy to understand at a glance.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for a Kaggle integration, lacking essential operations like listing datasets, uploading data, or managing competitions. While the tools are functional, the scope is incomplete for typical Kaggle workflows, making the count too low for the domain.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for a Kaggle MCP server. It covers downloading and searching datasets but misses critical operations such as uploading datasets, accessing competition data, or interacting with notebooks. This creates significant gaps that will hinder agents from performing common Kaggle tasks.

  • Average 2.9/5 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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks critical details: whether authentication is required (Kaggle typically needs API credentials), what happens if files already exist at the path, error handling, or any rate limits. The description is minimal beyond the basic operation.

    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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the formatting with 'Args:' could be more integrated. Every sentence adds value, making it appropriately concise.

    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 complexity of downloading datasets (which often involves authentication, file management, and error cases), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It misses key contextual details like authentication requirements, response format, or handling of large downloads, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

    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 description adds meaningful context for both parameters: it explains the format of 'dataset_ref' with an example and clarifies the default behavior and path structure for 'download_path'. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates somewhat, but it doesn't fully detail constraints (e.g., path validity, dataset accessibility).

    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 ('Downloads files') and resource ('for a specific Kaggle dataset'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search_kaggle_datasets' by focusing on downloading rather than searching, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

    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. While it's implied this is for downloading after a dataset is identified (versus searching with the sibling tool), there's no explicit mention of prerequisites, dependencies, or when-not-to-use 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. It mentions using the Kaggle API but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or what the search returns (e.g., format, fields). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

    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 zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

    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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover key aspects like authentication, rate limits, return format, or error handling. For a search tool with no structured support, more context is needed to guide an agent effectively.

    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 the description must compensate. It implies the 'query' parameter is used for searching datasets, but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema's title ('Query') and type suggest. No details on query syntax, examples, or constraints are provided, resulting in minimal added value.

    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 ('Searches for datasets') and target resource ('on Kaggle'), specifying it uses the Kaggle API. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'download_kaggle_dataset' by focusing on search rather than download, though it doesn't explicitly mention this 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?

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention the sibling tool 'download_kaggle_dataset' or any other search methods, nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication or rate limits.

    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

kaggle-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

kaggle-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/arrismo/kaggle-mcp'

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