Skip to main content
Glama
chazzawarner

space-stds

by chazzawarner
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

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 clearly distinct role: search_standards finds passages, get_document returns metadata, and get_passage retrieves a specific passage by ID. There is no meaningful overlap between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow the same verb_noun snake_case pattern: search_standards, get_document, get_passage. The naming is uniform and predictable.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools is well-scoped for a focused standards-search and retrieval server. Each tool covers a necessary step in the workflow without unnecessary bloat.

    Completeness4/5

    The search-to-passage retrieval workflow is complete, but there is no tool to list all indexed documents or fetch full document content. These are minor gaps that can be worked around via search and metadata access.

  • Average 3.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    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
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • 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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the result is 'authoritative metadata' and limited to an 'indexed document edition,' but it does not mention whether missing documents cause errors, how revisions are resolved, or any other side effects or constraints.

    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 short sentences with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the revision guidance is placed exactly where it belongs.

    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?

    For a straightforward single-document metadata retrieval tool, the description is close to adequate, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, without annotations or schema parameter descriptions, the source parameter remains unexplained and usage guidance relative to sibling tools is thin.

    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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds useful semantics for revision ('when more than one edition is indexed') but does not explain the meaning or role of source, which is a nontrivial optional parameter with an enum of CCSDS/ECSS.

    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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('authoritative metadata for one indexed document edition'), and clarifies it targets a single document rather than a search or passage. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_standards and get_passage.

    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 gives concrete guidance: specify revision when more than one edition is indexed. It implies this tool is for retrieving metadata for a known document rather than searching, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_standards or get_passage.

    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 carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently explains that results are locally indexed, ranking is based on meaningful query terms, provenance is returned, and an empty list has a specific meaning. It does not cover all behavioral details like pagination or threshold specifics, but it is notably more transparent than typical tool descriptions.

    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 sentences, no filler, and every phrase adds value: local indexing, ranking criterion, provenance, and empty-list semantics are all packed in efficiently. The core purpose is front-loaded.

    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?

    The description is strong for a search tool: it explains what is searched, how results are ranked, what provenance is returned, and how to interpret an empty result. It does not describe the filtering parameters or output shape, but the output schema exists and parameter names are mostly self-explanatory, so the description is reasonably complete.

    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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for six parameters, but it only adds meaning around the query concept ('meaningful query terms'). It does not explain source, status, revision, document_id, or limit beyond what their names and schema defaults imply, leaving a significant semantic gap.

    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—ranking locally indexed CCSDS and ECSS passages—and clearly identifies the resource being searched. The mention of provenance and empty-list semantics further distinguishes it from the sibling fetch tools get_document and get_passage.

    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 this tool is for searching/ranking standards passages, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of get_document or get_passage. There are no direct alternatives or exclusion conditions, so the usage context is only inferred rather than stated.

    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 present, so the description must carry behavioral weight. It usefully discloses that the identifier is opaque and that retrieval is for exactly one passage, which signals a direct lookup rather than search. However, it does not mention behavior on missing/invalid IDs, auth requirements, or read-only guarantees.

    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, tightly written sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then gives the essential provenance of the identifier.

    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?

    For a simple one-parameter get-by-id tool with an output schema available, the description provides the necessary context: what to retrieve and exactly where the identifier comes from. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and call it correctly.

    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?

    With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates well for the single parameter passage_id by explaining that it is an opaque identifier returned by search_standards. This adds semantics beyond the schema's bare string type.

    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 verb ('Retrieve'), a clear resource ('one exact passage'), and a precise identifier source ('opaque identifier returned by search_standards'). This distinguishes it from get_document (document-level) and search_standards (search operation) without needing to open schemas.

    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 clearly implies usage after search_standards, since the passage_id is produced by that tool. It does not explicitly discuss when to prefer get_document, but the passage vs. document distinction is reasonably evident from the wording.

    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

space-stds MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

space-stds 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/chazzawarner/space-stds'

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