Skip to main content
Glama
axelfreeman

TAPAC MCP

by axelfreeman
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

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 serve completely distinct purposes: one checks server status, the other finds contacts. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with the prefix 'tapac_', one describing a state (status) and the other an action (find_contacts). The naming is uniform.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for a contact-finding service, but each tool is clearly defined and serves a necessary function. It is borderline but not excessive.

    Completeness4/5

    The server covers the core operation of finding and verifying contacts with extensive filtering, plus a status check. Minor gaps like retrieving a specific contact by ID are absent, but the main workflow is complete.

  • Average 4.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored. Lowest: 3.5/5.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • No commit activity data available
    • 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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    The description indicates the tool performs a read-only check of status, version, and API-key state. While this implies safe, non-destructive behavior, there are no annotations to confirm. The description does not elaborate on potential latency, network dependencies, or error states, which would improve transparency.

    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 extremely concise, using a single sentence that effectively communicates the three aspects the tool checks: server status, version, and API-key state. There is no extraneous text, making it easy for an AI agent to quickly interpret its purpose.

    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 and the sibling tool is clearly for contact lookup, the description is largely sufficient for a status-check tool. However, the description does not explain the format or structure of the output, which could be important for an agent to interpret results, even though an output schema exists separately.

    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 has zero parameters and has 100% coverage. Since no parameters exist, there is no need for the description to add parameter-level details, and a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

    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 checks TAPAC server status, version, and API-key state. It uses specific nouns and verbs to describe the function, differentiating it from sibling tools that likely interact with contacts rather than checking server status.

    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 health-check or diagnostic purposes, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tapac_find_contacts. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or conditions under which a status check is appropriate.

    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?

    While no annotations are provided, the description adds significant context by specifying that contacts are returned as structured data with fields like name, title, company, email, source, and verification status. It also discloses that contacts are verified, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens when no contacts are found—minor gaps that prevent a top score.

    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 succinct and well-structured, with a concise opening sentence followed by a bulleted list of criteria to ask for. Every sentence provides essential information without repetition or fluff. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose, then details, making it easy for an AI agent 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 with 6 parameters, no required fields, and no annotations, the description covers the critical aspects: purpose, required user input, parameter semantics, and return structure. The presence of an output schema partially reduces the need to describe return values further. However, a note on error handling or empty results would enhance completeness for the agent, preventing it from being a 5.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters5/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema by defining each parameter with concrete examples (e.g., industry 'SaaS', location 'US'), which compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. For the limit parameter with default 10, it clarifies the purpose. This goes well beyond the bare schema definitions, making the parameters actionable for the agent.

    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 purpose: 'Find and verify B2B business contacts in real time.' The verb 'find and verify' combined with the resource 'B2B business contacts' and modifier 'in real time' makes the action explicit. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'tapac_status' by focusing on contact discovery rather than status checking.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines5/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description provides explicit usage guidelines by instructing the user to ask for specific criteria before calling the tool, listing each parameter with examples (e.g., industry 'SaaS', job_titles '[VP Sales, CTO, ...]'). This guidance clearly tells the agent when to use the tool—when it needs to collect these details from the user—and implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'tapac_status' which likely handles status queries.

    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

tapac-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

tapac-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/axelfreeman/tapac-mcp'

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