Skip to main content
Glama
buildoak

eywa-mcp

by buildoak
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

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 have clearly distinct purposes: eywa_extract saves a handoff from a session, while eywa_get retrieves past handoffs. There is no functional overlap.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow the same pattern: 'eywa_' prefix followed by a descriptive verb (extract, get). This is consistent and predictable.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the surface is minimal. While it covers the core extract and retrieve operations for handoffs, it feels thin; additional management tools like delete or list could be expected.

    Completeness4/5

    The tools cover the primary operations of creating (extract) and reading (get) handoffs. Gaps include update and delete, but those may not be necessary for immutable handoffs. Minor missing features like listing all handoffs are partially addressed by querying.

  • Average 4.5/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 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

  • 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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that without a query it returns the 3 most recent substantial sessions, and with a query it keyword-matches and returns top matches. Default values for parameters are mentioned. It does not explicitly state it's a read-only operation, but retrieval implies non-destructive behavior. The lack of destructive hints is acceptable given the retrieve nature.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is well-structured with a brief introductory sentence, usage notes, bullet-pointed behaviors, and examples. It is concise without unnecessary elaboration. The examples are helpful. Minor redundancy in the usage guidelines section, but overall efficient.

    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 that there is no output schema and only three optional parameters with full schema coverage, the description provides complete guidance on when and how to use the tool. It covers both query and no-query scenarios, default values, and result counts. The agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly without external context.

    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 covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the behavior difference with and without the query parameter, and by providing examples that illustrate how days_back and max_handoffs affect results. This supplements the schema definitions well.

    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 retrieves past session handoffs for context continuity. The verb 'retrieve' and resource 'past session handoffs' are specific. The examples further clarify the purpose. While the sibling 'eywa_extract' exists, the description sufficiently distinguishes by focusing on handoffs retrieval.

    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 says when to use the tool: 'Called at session start or when you need context about past work.' It also explains the two main usage modes (no query vs with query) and provides examples. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives, but the guidance 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 provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the use of the Anthropic Claude model, auto-detection via PID tracing and mtime, and persistence of a handoff document. It does not mention potential side effects or idempotency, but the disclosed behaviors are sufficient for a low-complexity 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 concise (under 80 words), well-structured with a clear overview, bullet points for usage, and examples. Every sentence adds information without redundancy or fluff.

    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 low complexity (single optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, parameter behavior, and underlying mechanism. It lacks explicit mention of the return value or error handling, but the intended audience can infer the output (a handoff document). It is largely complete for effective use.

    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?

    Despite high schema coverage (100%), the description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the auto-detection mechanism for the optional session_id, providing examples, and clarifying behavior in both arg-presence scenarios. This transforms a simple parameter into a well-understood feature.

    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 as extracting a handoff from a session, with a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('handoff from session'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'eywa_get' by focusing on extraction and persistence at session end.

    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 states the typical use case ('Called at end of session to persist a handoff document') and explains the two invocation modes (no args vs. with session_id). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative scenarios or compare with 'eywa_get' for differentiation.

    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

eywa-continuum MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

eywa-continuum 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/buildoak/eywa-continuum'

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