Skip to main content
Glama
bytesagain

bytesagain-mcp

by bytesagain
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool serves a clearly distinct purpose: get_skill for fetching details by slug, popular_skills for browsing top skills, search_skills for keyword-based skill discovery, and search_use_cases for finding workflow-driven content. No overlap exists.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow the verb_noun pattern using underscores (get_skill, popular_skills, search_skills, search_use_cases). While 'popular_skills' uses an adjective rather than a verb, it is consistent in style and easily understood.

    Tool Count5/5

    With only 4 tools, the surface is lean yet sufficient for the domain of searching and retrieving AI skills and use-cases. Each tool contributes a necessary function without redundancy.

    Completeness4/5

    Core operations are covered: searching skills, getting skill details, listing popular skills, and searching use-cases. However, there is no tool to retrieve full details for a specific use-case, which is a minor gap given that get_skill only covers skills.

  • Average 4.4/5 across 4 of 4 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.

  • 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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It explains results link to use-case pages with relevant skills, but lacks details on pagination, sorting, or potential side effects (though none expected for a search 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?

    Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, examples, and combination guidance. No wasted words.

    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 2-param search tool with no output schema, description adequately covers input, output linkage, and usage context. Could mention result count or format, but sufficient.

    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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds example queries for query param but adds no extra meaning beyond schema for limit. 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 states the tool searches use-case pages by real-world goal or workflow, gives concrete examples, and distinguishes from search_skills by mentioning combination for both workflow guidance and 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?

    Provides clear when-to-use with examples and suggests combining with search_skills for broader needs, but does not explicitly exclude cases where other siblings like get_skill are more 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?

    No annotations provided, but the description clearly indicates read-only behavior and what is returned ('compact skill summaries'). Could mention sorting criteria more explicitly, but overall transparent.

    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?

    Three focused sentences: main action, usage contexts, and exclusion. No redundant information, 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?

    Given no output schema, it describes the return format as 'compact skill summaries' but lacks specifics on fields. Otherwise complete for a simple list 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?

    Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'limit', and the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's own description.

    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 ('Return') and resource ('popular AI agent skills') and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating not to use for targeted task matching.

    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?

    Explicitly specifies when to use (browsing, onboarding, trend discovery) and when not to use (targeted task matching), with direct reference to alternative (search_skills).

    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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only operation by stating it 'fetches' data and returns metadata, without mentioning side effects. It could explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, but the behavior is clear enough.

    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 and front-loaded. It is concise but includes essential usage guidance and outcomes. Every sentence contributes meaning, though a slight reduction in length is possible without losing clarity.

    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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is comprehensive. It lists the returned fields and provides troubleshooting advice. It adequately covers the tool's context and user expectations.

    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 already covers the slug parameter with an example, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by specifying the slug must be an 'exact lowercase hyphen-separated slug from a previous result', reinforcing correct usage and validation constraints.

    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 'Fetch detailed metadata for one AI skill by exact slug', clearly identifying the resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_skills and popular_skills by focusing on a single skill retrieval via slug.

    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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('after search_skills or popular_skills returns a slug, or when the user provides a known slug'), what not to do ('Do not guess slugs'), and provides fallback guidance ('If the slug is not found, search again with related keywords').

    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?

    Describes ranking, included fields, and language support. Does not explicitly state it's read-only but infers from context. Lacking annotation coverage, description carries full burden and does well but misses explicit non-mutation statement.

    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?

    Concise 4-sentence description front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds distinct value without 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?

    Fully explains result fields and next step. No output schema, but description sufficiently covers what to expect. Sibling tools are indirectly addressed via linkage to get_skill.

    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?

    Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds query examples and limit defaults/maximum, enhancing usability beyond 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?

    Clearly states the verb 'Search', the specific resource 'BytesAgain index of 60,000+ AI agent skills', and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_skill (detail retrieval) and popular_skills (ranking list).

    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?

    Explicit instructs to use when user asks for tools, agents, etc. for a specific job. Provides supported languages and a clear post-search action (call get_skill with slug).

    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

mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-server 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/bytesagain/mcp-server'

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