toss-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v2.5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: docs search, source listing/syncing, example listing/searching/file retrieval/syncing, and icon search. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (search_, list_, sync_, get_) with clear resource nouns. The naming is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
8 tools is well-scoped for a developer resource search server covering docs, examples, and icons. Each tool serves a distinct purpose without unnecessary redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The surface covers searching, listing, and syncing for docs and examples, plus icon search and example file retrieval. A minor gap is the lack of a direct full-document retrieval tool for docs, but list_sources provides URLs as a workaround.
Average 3.7/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
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
- Last stable release on August 19, 2026
- 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

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description itself carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention side effects, read-only nature, output format, rate limits, or any behavior beyond the basic action. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely performs a read operation.
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 and well-structured, with a clear statement of purpose and a separate section for arguments. It contains no unnecessary fluff, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.
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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is the sole source of context. It lacks details about the expected output structure, the meaning of 'searchable', or any hints about result size or pagination. This incompleteness could lead to incorrect assumptions by the agent.
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 description provides some semantic value for the parameter 'platform' by listing possible values (webview, react_native, server) and indicating it is optional, which is not present in the schema (0% coverage). However, it does not explain what each value signifies or how filtering affects the results, leaving partial ambiguity.
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 that the tool shows a list of searchable Apps in the official Toss examples, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_docs or list_sources. The verb 'shows' is appropriate, though the term 'Apps' is slightly vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_examples or list_sources. There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer.
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 are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it checks commits and can re-download/verify with force=true, but it does not state side effects (e.g., local file modifications, network access), prerequisites, or what happens when force=false. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.
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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a compact args section. Every sentence contributes useful information, though it is somewhat terse in Korean. The structure is clear and efficient.
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?
The description is incomplete for a sync tool. It lacks context about the actual sync operation, side effects, and what 'check' leads to. Given that there is an output schema, return values are not needed, but behavioral context is under-specified for a tool that likely downloads and modifies local files.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the description provides meaningful semantics for the 'force' parameter: 'True이면 같은 commit이어도 다시 다운로드하고 검증' explains the re-download and verify behavior. It adds value beyond the schema's boolean type, though it does not explicitly state the default behavior when force=false.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says it checks the latest commit of 'Toss 공식 예제 main', but the tool name is 'sync_examples', implying synchronization. The verb '확인' (check) does not fully convey the sync action, and the description does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'sync_sources'. The force argument hints at downloading/verifying, but the core purpose remains somewhat vague.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools, exclusions, or prerequisites. The description only states what it does, not when it should be used.
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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context by specifying that only 'searchable official/built-in' sources are included and that URLs are returned. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it discuss auth or side effects, though 'shows' implies non-mutation.
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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the main action and resource, and contains no redundant information. It is appropriately concise for a simple list tool.
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 zero-parameter signature and existence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It could be improved by hinting at its role in the broader workflow (e.g., discovering sources before searching), but it adequately defines what the tool does for invocation.
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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter explanation is unnecessary. Schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the description adds meaning by clarifying the tool's scope (listing sources) without needing to describe parameter syntax.
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 verb 'shows' and the resource ('searchable official/built-in documentation sources and source URLs'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_docs, sync_sources, and search_icons by focusing exclusively on listing available sources.
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. The description does not mention search_docs for searching within these sources, sync_sources for updating them, or any exclusion criteria. It only states what the tool does without situational context.
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 carries full burden. It explains the force parameter but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or whether the operation is destructive. Synchronization 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficiently communicates the tool's action and the single parameter.
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 required fields, output schema exists), the description adequately covers purpose and parameter semantics. Lacks usage contextualization but is sufficient for a basic sync operation.
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 has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning by explaining that force=true ignores cache and forces re-collection. This significantly supplements the schema, which only provides type and default.
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 synchronizes documents manually, with a specific verb and resource. It distinctively differs from sibling search tools.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_docs or search_icons. The description only mentions 'manually' but lacks context about automatic synchronization or other options.
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?
The description provides no behavioral details beyond what the schema implies. It doesn't mention pagination, return format, or potential limitations. However, the output schema exists, and this is a read-only search tool, but the description adds no transparency about what happens on no results or the nature of results.
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 concise and structured as a docstring with an Args section. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and each parameter gets a line. It's efficient but could be slightly more structured with a clearer primary description separated from args.
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 output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. The tool is a search function with a query and optional filters, and the description covers the main usage. However, it lacks some context on what typical results look like or how to combine filters, but overall it's fairly complete.
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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what each filter does and the acceptable language values. With 0% schema description coverage, it compensates by providing guidance on parameter usage, defaults, and constraints (max_results max 20).
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 searches Toss official example code and READMEs, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_docs by focusing on examples and READMEs, and mentions the query keyword types (API, functions, features, code keywords).
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?
While the description doesn't explicitly exclude conditions, it clearly lists optional filters (example, language, max_results) with their meanings and defaults, giving context on when to use them. It falls short of naming sibling alternatives, but the context of use is reasonably clear.
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 full burden. It discloses that the operation is a query (조회), which implies read-only, and it specifies a maximum line range of 400 lines, which is a behavioral constraint. It does not mention errors, output structure, or authentication, but for a read operation the disclosed constraints are valuable.
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 brief and efficient, with a single purpose statement and a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds information about how to use the tool, and it is well-structured by separating the main description from Args.
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 complexity (line-range read with defaults and a max), the description covers all parameters and a key constraint (400-line max). An output schema exists, so return values are presumably defined there. The only gap is that it does not explicitly state what happens if line range exceeds file length or if path is invalid, but given the output schema presence, it is reasonably complete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter: 'path' is the relative repo path from search_examples, 'start_line' is inclusive 1-based, 'end_line' is inclusive, and the max of 400 lines total. This is beyond the raw schema and provides essential usage semantics.
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 states that the tool retrieves a specified line range from a selected official example file, which is a specific action on a specific resource. It is differentiated from siblings like search_examples because it specifically retrieves file content, not searches. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
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 provides context in a Korean-language note stating '가입한 공식 예제 파일의 지정 줄 범위를 조회합니다.' and parameter descriptions, including that 'path' must be the relative path returned by search_examples, which signals a prerequisite. It lacks an explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the usage context is reasonably clear.
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 are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool searches and provides usage codes, implying read-only behavior, but does not detail side effects, prerequisites, or response structure beyond that.
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, with one sentence defining the purpose followed by a structured argument documentation. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.
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 existence of an output schema, the description is not required to detail return values. It provides parameter context and hints at usage codes. Minor improvement could be more context on the output format, but current is sufficient.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: query as search term, icon_type with examples ('icon-*', 'icn-*', 'emoji/image'), and max_results with default and maximum values. This adds significant meaning.
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 searches a specific icon catalog and provides usage code recommendations. Sibling tools search_docs and sync_sources are clearly different in domain, so purpose is distinct.
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 explains parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer from tool names.
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 carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that results include field notes (even when filtering by apps_in_toss) and that it covers material beyond the official spec. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the read-only nature is implied and no contradictions exist.
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 well-structured: a succinct purpose statement, a valuable note about field notes, and a clean Args list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 the tool's complexity (3 params, no annotations, and an output schema that likely explains return format), the description is complete: it specifies the search scope, parameter semantics, and cross-references list_sources. No critical gaps are apparent.
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?
The description explains all three parameters in detail: query (space-separated keywords), source (optional, check list_sources), and max_results (default 10, max 30). This is essential because the schema has no descriptions (0% coverage in the input schema), and the description fully compensates.
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 searches Toss developer docs and built-in supplemental materials, using a specific verb (search) and resource (docs). It also distinguishes itself by mentioning the inclusion of field notes not in official specs, which differentiates it from sibling search_examples and search_icons.
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 provides context on when to use it (searching docs, including field notes) and explicitly points to the list_sources tool for valid source values. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, but the guidance is clear and relevant.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![toss-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chabinhwang/toss-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chabinhwang/toss-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![toss-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chabinhwang/toss-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chabinhwang/toss-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/chabinhwang/toss-mcp'

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