Skip to main content
Glama
bevanding

signaldaemon-mcp

by bevanding
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

75%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools serve clearly different purposes: one for curated article feeds on a query topic, the other for crypto market narratives with divergence signals. No overlap.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools use consistent snake_case and verb_noun pattern (get_clean_feed, get_market_narratives), maintaining naming uniformity.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for a 'signal daemon' scope, but it may be intentionally focused. The count is borderline acceptable.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set covers only two specific signal types (feed and market narratives) and lacks broader operations like historical analysis or asset-specific signals, leaving significant gaps for a comprehensive signal daemon.

  • Average 3.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 6 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.

  • This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.

  • 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?

    The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it curates, de-noises, attributes sources, and reports honestly (thin coverage). This complements the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. No contradiction.

    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 purpose and followed by a key behavioral note. Every word adds value. No redundancy.

    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?

    With three parameters, no output schema, and no parameter explanations, the description leaves gaps. It fails to specify expected values for category, limit constraints, or return format. Incomplete for an AI agent to invoke confidently.

    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 explain any of the three parameters (query, category, limit). The schema provides structure but no semantics; the description should compensate but does not.

    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 returns a curated, de-noised, source-attributed feed for a query topic. The verb 'return' and resource 'feed' are specific, and the mention of honest coverage distinguishes it from siblings like get_market_narratives.

    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 honesty in reporting ('thin rather than padding'), which hints at when to use this tool, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use it versus the sibling tool get_market_narratives. No alternative or exclusion is mentioned.

    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?

    Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds value by detailing the output components (narratives with strength, momentum, divergence, and market_snapshot) and notes that divergence readings are relative to the snapshot. However, it does not clarify data recency or how results change over time.

    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 main purpose, and contains no extraneous information. 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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value. It could be more complete by explaining how to interpret strength/momentum scales or the effect of the limit parameter.

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

    Parameters1/5

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

    The description does not mention the only parameter 'limit' at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to explain the parameter's purpose, default, or usage.

    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 it returns 'top crypto market narratives with strength, momentum, and price divergence signals' and includes a 'market_snapshot'. This is specific and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_clean_feed', which likely serves a different purpose.

    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 fetching market narratives and signals, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_clean_feed' or provide any conditions or 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

signaldaemon MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

signaldaemon 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/bevanding/signaldaemon'

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