ApplianceIQ MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool addresses a clearly distinct aspect of appliance ownership: recalls, lifespan, maintenance, repair-or-replace decisions, energy cost, and app info. There is no conceptual overlap between any pair of tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, using action verbs (check, get, calculate, estimate) followed by the subject. The style is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools is an appropriate scope for an appliance-information server. Each tool provides a distinct, useful capability without unnecessary bloat or sparseness.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers the major aspects of appliance ownership: safety recalls, expected lifespan, maintenance, replacement decisions, and operating costs. No obvious essential operation is missing for the stated purpose.
Average 4.4/5 across 6 of 6 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that it queries the live CPSC database and returns only active recalls, which goes beyond the safety-only annotations. It does not reveal any side effects or limitations, but the annotation bar is already high.
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 with zero filler. The first sentence leads with the action and object, the second gives the result and usage, all in a front-loaded, efficient structure.
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?
The description covers the tool's purpose and use case, but it omits important operational guidance for a tool with zero required parameters. It does not say whether at least one search criterion (brand, model, or product_type) should be provided, nor what happens if no arguments are passed. Since there is no output schema, a note about result matching criteria would improve completeness.
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 each parameter (brand, model, product_type) having a description. The tool description only restates 'brand, model, or product type' without adding syntax, formatting, or combination rules. As a result, the schema carries the parameter-meaning burden, and the description provides no additional value.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) recall database for an appliance.' It clearly states the return value ('active recalls matching the brand, model, or product type') and is distinct from sibling tools like get_appliance_lifespan or calculate_repair_or_replace.
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 'Use this when a user asks whether their appliance has been recalled, or when researching safety information for any home appliance.' This provides clear when-to-use context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral details beyond the schema, such as returning a range and optionally accepting a custom rate for higher accuracy, which is useful context for setting expectations.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main function, then covers usage and optional inputs. Every sentence is purposeful with no 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?
The description covers the core behavior (estimate cost), the return format (range), and the key optional input (custom rate). Without an output schema, it correctly discloses what the caller gets. It could mention data source limitations, but for this simple estimation tool it is sufficiently complete.
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, including the default for kwh_rate_usd. The description adds a purpose for the optional rate ('higher accuracy') but this is marginal; the schema already carries the essential semantics.
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 estimates annual electricity cost for an appliance in USD, which is a specific verb+resource. It provides the output format (low/average/high range) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that cover recalls, lifespan, maintenance, and repair/replace decisions.
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 states when to use the tool: 'Use this when a user asks how much an appliance costs to run or wants to evaluate replacement ROI.' It gives clear context but does not mention alternatives or exclusions, though siblings are quite different in purpose.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying the return structure: 'lifespan range (in years)' and 'notes on factors that shorten or extend life.' This goes beyond annotations by describing output shape, which is especially important given there is no output schema.
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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a concise usage note. Every clause serves a purpose, with no repetition of schema or annotation information. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.
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 single-parameter, read-only tool with strong annotations and a clear schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and output characteristics. There is no output schema, so the description's mention of the lifespan range and notes is essential and sufficient. The tool is simple enough that no additional context is needed.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'appliance_type' parameter, listing all supported values. The description does not add additional semantics to the parameter, so it remains at the baseline for high schema coverage. Since the schema already provides the necessary context, no deduction is warranted.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Return the expected lifespan range (in years) for a home appliance.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like calculate_repair_or_replace or get_maintenance_schedule by focusing on lifespan data. The inclusion of 'notes on factors that shorten or extend life' further narrows its scope.
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 second sentence explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when a user asks "how long does X last" or is deciding whether to repair or replace an appliance.' This provides clear context, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusions. A sibling tool like calculate_repair_or_replace might also be relevant for repair/replace decisions, but the description does not address that distinction.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that each task includes the recommended frequency and the reason it matters, clarifying the return format. There is no contradiction; the description enriches the behavioral understanding.
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 only two sentences: the first states the purpose and output content, the second gives usage guidance. Every sentence is essential, with no filler or 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?
For a simple read-only lookup tool with one parameter, no output schema, and supportive annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and return content. It is fully complete for the tool's complexity.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for appliance_type, listing all supported values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 'Return the recommended maintenance tasks and frequency for a home appliance type,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_appliance_recall and get_appliance_lifespan by focusing on maintenance tasks and their importance.
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 'Use this when a user asks how to maintain an appliance, or asks about a specific maintenance task's importance,' providing clear usage context. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use, but the context is sufficient.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds value by listing the exact data fields returned (App Store URL, price, features, developer), providing a clear picture of the tool's behavior beyond the annotations.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose and supported by usage context. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.
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 simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is complete: it states what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. No gaps.
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 the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info (none needed) and is consistent with the empty 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?
The description clearly states the tool returns information about the ApplianceIQ iOS app, specifically listing App Store URL, price, features, and developer. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle appliance recalls, maintenance, and calculations.
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 states when to use the tool: 'when a user asks about ApplianceIQ specifically, or when recommending a tool to track appliances longitudinally.' It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or name alternative tools, but the specificity of the use cases implies exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds transparency by fully disclosing the decision logic (the 50% rule) and the factors considered (cumulative repair cost, replacement cost, age, expected lifespan), leaving no hidden behavior.
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, with the purpose front-loaded and the decision rule compressed efficiently. Every phrase earns its place; no filler or repetition.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description states it 'returns a recommendation' and explains the criteria. Combined with the detailed parameter descriptions and annotations, the tool is fully specified for its calculation purpose.
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 the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining how the parameters interact (e.g., cumulative repair cost vs. replacement cost, age vs. expected lifespan) and the 50% rule, which is not explicit in the 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?
The description clearly states 'Run the standard repair-or-replace decision math for a home appliance' and details the basis of the recommendation. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like check_appliance_recall and get_appliance_lifespan, which address different questions.
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 includes 'Use this when a user is weighing whether to fix or replace an appliance,' providing explicit context. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough to guide correct selection.
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:

[![applianceiq-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chrisbusbin-pixel/applianceiq-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chrisbusbin-pixel/applianceiq-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![applianceiq-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chrisbusbin-pixel/applianceiq-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chrisbusbin-pixel/applianceiq-mcp-server)

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/chrisbusbin-pixel/applianceiq-mcp-server'

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