Skip to main content
Glama
caresolace

ai-care-agent-mcp

by caresolace
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a distinct and well-defined purpose: resolving case references, checking health, listing pathways, and searching providers. No two tools overlap in functionality.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tool names use snake_case and are mostly verb_noun (get_, list_, search_), with the exception of health_check which is a noun phrase, but still follows the same style.

    Tool Count4/5

    Four tools is a reasonable count for a focused care agent server. It covers the essential operations without being sparse or excessive.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set covers the core workflow of obtaining search context, listing pathways, and searching providers. A health check is included. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct CRUD for cases), but the surface is adequate for its stated purpose.

  • Average 3.2/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is failing

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • 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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    The description mentions the tool does not execute a search, which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, it should also disclose authentication, rate limits, or side effects. The description is too minimal.

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

    Conciseness3/5

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

    The description is succinct (one sentence), but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is not front-loaded well and lacks explanation of parameters. It is concise but not sufficiently informative.

    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?

    Given the tool has 4 parameters and sibling tools that are not differentiated, the description is incomplete. The output schema exists but the description does not clarify the return value or parameter roles. More context is needed.

    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?

    The description mentions case_ref and search criteria, but the input schema includes other parameters (pathway, correlation_id) and a search_criteria input that is confusing. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not clarify these parameters.

    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 action (resolve) and the resource (case_ref to search criteria), and distinguishes it from siblings by noting it does not execute the search. However, it could be more specific about the output.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like search_providers or list_search_pathways. The context for use is implied but not explicit.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the parameters to use but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The search behavior is implied but not detailed.

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

    Conciseness3/5

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

    The description is a single sentence of 12 words, which is concise but lacks structure. It is front-loaded with the action but could be expanded to include more context without becoming verbose.

    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?

    Given the complexity (4 parameters, no schema descriptions, output schema present), the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter usage, the meaning of a 'pathway search', or what the output contains.

    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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions only two of four parameters (case_ref and search_criteria) and does not explain their meaning or relationship. The pathway and correlation_id parameters are omitted entirely.

    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 action (run a search) and resource (pathway provider), and it is not a tautology. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like get_case_search_context or list_search_pathways.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or on how to choose between the two search modes (case_ref vs search_criteria).

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states what it returns, does not mention that it is read-only, idempotent, or any authentication/rate-limit considerations. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

    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?

    Single sentence, no superfluous words. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, achieving maximum conciseness.

    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?

    Has an output schema, so return values need not be detailed. Description is sufficient for a simple listing tool, though it could mention that the pathways are inputs to other search tools for better completeness.

    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?

    No parameters (0 params), so baseline is 4. Description does not need to explain parameters, and it appropriately adds no parameter-related clutter.

    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?

    Clearly states it returns supported search pathways and required field hints. Verb 'Return' and resource 'search pathways' are specific. Does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_case_search_context or search_providers, but the purpose is distinct enough.

    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?

    Implied usage: use when needing to know available search pathways before performing a search. No explicit when-not or alternative tools mentioned, leaving the agent to infer timing.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations provided, so description must convey behavior. It states 'report' implying read-only, but does not explicitly mention side effects, prerequisites, or response format. Adequate for a simple health check but lacks depth.

    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?

    A single 10-word sentence efficiently conveys purpose with no redundancy. Every word earns its place.

    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?

    Has output schema but does not describe return values or details beyond health status. For a no-parameter tool, it is minimally complete but could mention output structure or error conditions.

    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?

    No parameters exist, so baseline 4 is appropriate. Schema coverage is 100% trivially, and description adds no extra meaning since none needed.

    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 reports agent health and upstream carematch /health status. It uses specific verb 'report' and distinct resource, differentiating it from sibling tools which are search-oriented.

    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 implies use for health monitoring without explicit when-to-use or alternatives. Given the simplicity and sibling context, it's reasonably clear though could be more explicit.

    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

ai-care-agent-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

ai-care-agent-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/caresolace/ai-care-agent-mcp'

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