The Bag Kenya — MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the shopping experience: product discovery, details, stock, cart, bundles, categories, styling, blog, and store info. There is mild overlap between browse_products and search_products, but their descriptions clarify usage.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (browse_products, search_products, get_product, check_stock, generate_cart_link, browse_bundles, browse_categories, get_styling_advice, read_blog). 'store_info' breaks the pattern but is still readable.
Tool Count5/5
10 tools is well-scoped for an e-commerce store, covering product discovery, purchase facilitation, and supporting content without being bloated.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the core shopping flow: browse/search, view details, check stock, generate cart link. It also includes bundles, styling advice, blog, and store info, making it fairly complete. Minor gaps exist such as no explicit user account or order tracking, but these are outside the typical MCP scope.
Average 3.9/5 across 10 of 10 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral transparency. It confirms the read operation and content domain, but does not disclose how parameters interact (e.g., precedence of slug vs. topic), whether no-param calls return a list, or what the response includes. This leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding invocation.
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 one sentence (14 words) with the verb first and no fluff. It includes a dash to add beneficial context about the blog's content categories. Every word earns its place.
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 tool is simple and the schema is documented, but the lack of an output schema and annotations means the description should cover ambiguous behavior like what happens with no arguments and whether slug and topic are compatible. It does neither, so the agent must guess. This makes it incomplete for a zero-required-parameter tool.
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 input schema provides descriptive details for all three parameters (slug, limit, topic), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics—it does not explain the relationship between the topic argument and the listed content types or how limit behaves. Thus it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.
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 names a specific action ('Read') and resource ('fashion blog posts from The Bag Kenya'), and specifies content types (styling guides, trend reports, product roundups). This clearly differentiates from the product-focused sibling tools, none of which cover blog reading.
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 fashion blog content, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or exclude other cases. The sibling names make the domain distinction obvious, yet the tool itself lacks explicit guidance such as 'use for blog content rather than product info.'
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'search' but does not describe what the response looks like, whether results are ranked, if there is pagination, or if it is a read-only operation. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
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 concise, consisting of two sentences that immediately state the action and a helpful example. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information.
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?
The tool is simple with three documented parameters, and the description covers the search scope. However, it lacks any mention of the return format or how results are structured, which would be helpful since there is no output schema. For a basic search tool, it is mostly complete but leaves a small gap.
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 input schema has 100% coverage for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the query parameter accepts natural language, but it does not add semantics for max_price or min_price beyond their schema descriptions. Overall, schema handles the heavy lifting.
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 searches for products at The Bag Kenya by name, description, or style, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool browse_products, which may also be used to find products, so it misses the full 5 for sibling differentiation.
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 gives usage hints by suggesting natural language queries like 'crop tee' or 'casual pants', which implies the intended input style. But it does not specify when to use search_products versus browse_products or other 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('check if available') but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the response format is, whether stock data is real-time, or any error conditions. The word 'check' implies a read query, but no explicit behavioral details are provided.
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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. There is no extraneous information, making it exceptionally concise and easy to parse.
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 output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally explain what the agent can expect as a response (e.g., boolean, stock count) and clarify the optional nature of size/color parameters. It covers the basic purpose but leaves gaps in return value and edge-case behavior, making it merely adequate.
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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (slug, size, color), and the description references 'size/color combination' and 'specific product' which map to these. However, it adds no additional syntactic or contextual meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, so it earns the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 uses the specific verb 'check' with a clear resource: 'product size/color combination available at The Bag Kenya.' This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like browse_products, search_products, and get_product, which focus on browsing, searching, or retrieving product details rather than availability checking.
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 when you have a specific size/color combination, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_product or browse_products. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, so the guidance is only implicit.
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 must carry the full burden. It only states the action and criteria, without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, what the response contains, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a recommendation tool, though not misleading.
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, focused sentence. It is front-loaded with the action and efficiently lists the input categories without extraneous detail.
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?
The description covers the core purpose and input dimensions, but with no output schema or annotations, it leaves ambiguity about the return format (e.g., product list vs. text advice) and whether the parameters are exclusive ('or') or combinable. This makes it adequate but not fully 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?
The schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description merely restates the parameter categories ('occasion, style preference, or budget') without adding further clarification on how parameters interact or examples of valid values.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('styling recommendations from The Bag Kenya's collection') and the basis ('occasion, style preference, or budget'). It distinguishes this advice-giving tool from the product browsing and search sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its use case with clear input criteria, but it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like browse_products or search_products, nor does it state when not to use it. The context is clear, but there are no exclusions or alternative guidance.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only 'browse' operation and adds context about curation and discount pricing, but it does not disclose details about the response format, ordering, pagination, or any potential side effects. For a zero-parameter read tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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 core action ('Browse curated product bundles'), and the second sentence adds valuable context about the bundles' value proposition. Every word earns its place.
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?
The description is complete enough for a simple, zero-parameter browse tool. It specifies the resource (bundles), the location (The Bag Kenya), and the key differentiator (discounted multi-item sets). While it doesn't detail return fields or ordering, such details are not essential for a straightforward browsing action.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not explain parameters. Per the rubric, zero parameters gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate.
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 identifies the tool's function: 'Browse curated product bundles' with a specific resource (bundles) and context (at The Bag Kenya). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browse_products by focusing on bundles, which are a distinct product category.
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 when customers want discounted multi-item offerings, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like browse_products or search_products. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
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 burden of disclosing behavior. It states the output fields and the 'all available products' scope, but it does not explicitly clarify read-only behavior, pagination, or the tension between 'all' and the schema's limit max 20. This is adequate but has clear 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 only two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence contributes value: the first states what it does, the second describes the return and usage intent.
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 simple browse tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return payload (names, prices, categories, availability) and the discovery use case. It does not mention defaults for optional parameters like sort or limit, but the schema covers those, making the description largely 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?
The schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'categories' as an output field, which loosely aligns with the category filter, but it adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema.
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's function: 'Browse all available products at The Bag Kenya' and mentions the return of a list with specific fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like browse_bundles and browse_categories by focusing on products across categories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides explicit usage context with 'Use this to discover what's available,' which tells the agent when to invoke it for exploration. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives like search_products, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the outcome (the user can open the link and go directly to checkout) but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, link expiration, or handling of invalid products. It adds some context beyond the bare function but lacks important behavioral details.
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 primary action and then adding the purpose. Every sentence adds value with no redundant wording. It is concise and well-structured.
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 simple one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose and the expected user-facing outcome (link to checkout). It implies the return is a shareable link. However, it does not specify the exact response format or error behavior, and with no annotations, a bit more detail would have been useful. Still, the coverage is reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter 'items' and its nested properties are fully documented. The description only loosely refers to 'pre-selected products' but adds no detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter semantics.
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's function: 'Generate a shareable link to The Bag Kenya with pre-selected products.' It uses a specific verb ('generate') and distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which focus on browsing, searching, and product info. No other sibling creates a cart link.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear use case: 'This is the best way to help someone buy items.' This indicates when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Since no sibling tool fulfills this function, the implied guidance is adequate.
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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It conveys a safe read operation and lists returned fields, but does not disclose behavior for invalid slugs, authentication requirements, or error responses. This is a moderate gap for a getter tool.
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, front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first. It avoids redundancy and includes only relevant details about the returned information.
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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately indicates the return content (sizes, colors, price, availability). It could mention error handling, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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% and already explains the slug with an example. The description adds only the word 'specific,' which does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full details for a specific product'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling browsing/searching tools. It also enumerates key fields (sizes, colors, price, availability), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'specific product' implies usage when the agent already has a product slug and needs complete details. It does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear and no alternative tool is misrepresented.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds valuable behavioral context by specifying that product counts are included and that only 'available' categories are listed. This goes beyond simply saying 'list categories' and covers the main expectation users would have.
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, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. It contains no unnecessary words and is 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?
For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states exactly what the tool returns (categories with counts) and the business context (The Bag Kenya). It could specify the return format, but given the simplicity, this is not a major gap.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so description coverage is trivially 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and this aligns with the baseline for 0-parameter tools. No additional parameter semantics are required.
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 verb 'List' and the resource 'product categories', with a specific scope ('The Bag Kenya') and a key detail ('with product counts'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browse_products, which list products, not categories.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. However, the tool's name and description make it obvious that it is for browsing categories, so usage is implied. There is no guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the nature of the operation (read-only info retrieval) and the specific content areas covered. While it doesn't state return format or dynamic behavior, it gives enough context for a simple no-parameter tool.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the key information categories. Every word contributes value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough: it fully explains what information will be retrieved. It covers the main store-related topics without needing to elaborate on return formats or side effects.
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 is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter details since there are none, but it does clarify what the returned information will contain, which is valuable.
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's function with a specific verb ('Get information') and resource ('The Bag Kenya'), and enumerates the types of information (delivery, payment, returns, contact). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on products, browsing, and styling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly defines when to use the tool: whenever store-level information is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context of sibling tool names makes the distinction clear, so it provides adequate guidance without exclusions.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![thebag-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/atthedanieljuma/thebag-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/atthedanieljuma/thebag-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![thebag-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/atthedanieljuma/thebag-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/atthedanieljuma/thebag-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/atthedanieljuma/thebag-mcp'

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