Skip to main content
Glama
brianmituka

dhis2-mcp

by brianmituka
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.2.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools are clearly distinct: search_indicators handles metadata discovery while query_analytics retrieves aggregated data. The explicit dependency between them removes any ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow the same verb_noun pattern with snake_case naming (search_indicators, query_analytics), making the naming perfectly consistent and predictable.

    Tool Count2/5

    Two tools feels very thin for a DHIS2 server, which typically covers a broad health information system domain. The server only exposes a small analytics niche, so the count does not match the implied scope.

    Completeness3/5

    The core workflow of searching for indicators then querying analytics is present, but there is no way to discover organization units, periods, or other metadata within the server. This forces agents to obtain those identifiers from outside the tool surface.

  • Average 4.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 4 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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral burden. It makes clear this is a read-oriented query returning aggregated values by period/org unit, but it does not disclose authentication needs, output shape, or any limitations beyond the single-indicator constraint.

    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 very concise: two sentences, no filler. The main behavior is front-loaded, and the required workflow hint is placed second, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

    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 necessary prerequisite workflow and the parameters are fully documented in the schema. However, there is no output schema and no discussion of response structure, pagination, result size, or error behavior, so some operational details remain unclear.

    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 describes all parameters with defaults and examples, so schema coverage is high. The description adds the prerequisite relationship to search_indicators, but otherwise does not meaningfully expand on what the schema already communicates.

    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 that the tool returns aggregated values for one indicator, split by period, for one organisation unit. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by positioning search_indicators as a prerequisite, making the purpose and scope easy to identify.

    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 explicitly tells the agent to run search_indicators first to get the indicator id, which is practical workflow guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, such as when multiple indicators or multiple organisation units are needed, but the scope is clear enough.

    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 correctly signals that this is a read/search operation and transparently states what will be returned for each match. It does not mention edge cases like empty results, case sensitivity, or search matching behavior, but the core behavioral expectations are disclosed.

    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 exceptionally efficient: two short sentences with no fluff. The main verb, resource, search target, and expected output shape are all front-loaded. Every word earns its place, supporting quick agent comprehension.

    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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key return details (id, name, description) and makes the domain clear. Minor missing elements, such as the fact that the limit default is 10 (already in schema) or behavior when no matches exist, are not critical given the simplicity of the tool.

    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 schema already documents both parameters with full coverage, but the description adds meaning by clarifying that the query parameter searches against the indicator name specifically. This helps the agent understand that the if the query should be treated as a name filter rather than a keyword search across all fields.

    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 states a specific action ('Search'), a specific resource ('DHIS2 indicators'), and a scoping criterion ('by name'), and includes the exact return fields ('id, name, and description'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool query_analytics, which very likely focuses on analytical data rather than indicator metadata.

    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 the tool should be used when an agent needs to find indicators by their name, but it does not explicitly discuss when another tool should be preferred or contrast itself with query_analytics. There is no exclusionary guidance, leaving usage somewhat to inference.

    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

dhis2-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

dhis2-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/brianmituka/dhis2-mcp'

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