Skip to main content
Glama

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.
  • Latest release: v0.1.7

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusing it with another tool. The tool's purpose is clearly defined in its description.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The single tool name follows a credible server_prefix_action convention, and with only one tool there are no inconsistencies to evaluate.

    Tool Count2/5

    A single tool is too few for a server named 'attestify-mcp' that likely needs additional operations like listing or managing research jobs and evidence ledger entries.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool only runs a research query but provides no way to list previous queries, retrieve detailed results, or manage the evidence ledger, leaving significant gaps in the expected domain.

  • Average 4/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 9 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing
  • 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

  • Behavior4/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    Without annotations, the description carries full burden and adds significant behavioral context: metering cost ($0.023 USDC) and logging to an evidence ledger. It also discloses output structure. This is strong, though it omits potential side effects beyond cost/logging.

    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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome, and each clause adds distinct value: what it does, what it returns, and the cost/logging side effects. No wasted words.

    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?

    For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return format (structured briefing with executive summary, key findings, caveats) and a notable operational detail (cost/logging). It lacks explicit output schema, but the description sufficiently compensates, making it fairly complete.

    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 100% per context signals, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the query, url, or session_id parameters, leaving schema descriptions to carry the semantic load.

    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 runs a deep research query through a specific agent (researcher-v2) and returns a structured briefing. It identifies the verb, resource, and output, making the purpose unmistakable even without sibling context.

    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 phrase 'deep research query' implies use for comprehensive research, but there is no explicit statement of when to use vs alternatives or any exclusions. Lacking siblings, the guidance is only implied rather than formally specified.

    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

attestify-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

attestify-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/attestifyagent/attestify-mcp'

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