clawborrator-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.0.45
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct, non-overlapping purpose: asking questions, file upload/download/read, agent/peer discovery, routing, streaming, and handoffs. No ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_phrase pattern (e.g., ask_question, attach_file, dispatch_to_agent), making them predictable and easy to distinguish.
Tool Count5/5
12 tools is well-scoped for a collaboration server, covering essential interactions with remote operators, peers, and public agents without being excessive.
Completeness4/5
Covers core operations (ask, upload, download, read, route, reply, handoff) well. Minor gaps like file deletion or agent management are not critical for the primary use case.
Average 4.6/5 across 12 of 12 tools scored. Lowest: 3.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 5 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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'tagged' and 'final reply' but does not elaborate on behavioral implications such as whether it ends the prompt, prevents further replies, or any irreversible effects.
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, first states purpose, second provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded and efficient.
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 explains the workflow context (finishing a routed prompt) and identifies chat_id source, but lacks information about return value, error handling, or whether the action is reversible. Adequate but with gaps given the critical nature of a final reply.
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%, so description adds limited value. It adds context for chat_id (source from await_routed_prompt) but text parameter is just restated. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool posts a 'tagged final reply' to a chat. It uses a specific verb ('post') and resource ('chat'), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'reply_chunk' by specifying 'final reply'.
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 explicit context: 'Use this whenever you finish replying to a routed prompt' and a prerequisite: 'pass back the chat_id you received from await_routed_prompt'. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives like reply_chunk.
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 discloses key behaviors: parallel fan-out, return format (list of peer-answer pairs), and a 30-second collection window. It lacks details on authorization needs or error handling, but covers the main behavioral traits beyond the verb.
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, highly concise. The first sentence states the action, the second provides usage context and expected output. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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, the description explains the return format (list of pairs) and includes a time constraint. It covers the essential aspects for a simple tool, though it omits details like error behavior or maximum peers. Still, it is fairly complete for its 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters described in the schema. The description adds minimal extra semantics: it explains the purpose of null for peers and the return format, but this adds little beyond the schema's descriptions. Baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Fan-out the same short question to many peers in parallel.' It specifies the resource (peers) and the purpose (discovery), with an example. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'ask_question' (single peer) and 'list_peers' (no questioning).
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 explicit guidance to 'Use for discovery' with an example, implying the appropriate context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools, leaving some room for ambiguity.
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 transparently discloses constraints (path must be under cwd, symlinks refused), return value (fileId), and usage of targetSessionId. It does not cover error cases but is sufficient for safe operation.
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 front-loaded with the main purpose and each sentence adds value. Slightly verbose but still efficient; 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers path constraints, return value, and optional usage. Minor gap: no error handling details, but adequate for typical use.
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 is 3. The description adds value by clarifying path resolution, security, and optional session targeting beyond the schema descriptions.
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 uploads a file as a chat attachment, specifies the path constraint, and distinguishes from siblings like read_file or download_to_path.
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?
It provides clear usage context ('when the operator should be able to download a file you produced') and explains when to use targetSessionId. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance.
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?
Discloses that the hub persists the payload as Handoff tail event, routes serialized JSON to recipient, and returns the JSON string. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; it adequately covers behavioral aspects.
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?
Description is informative but not overly long. Front-loaded with main purpose. Could potentially be more concise, but it's well-structured and includes necessary pattern explanation.
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?
Tool is complex (11 params, nested objects), but schema covers parameter details. Description provides pattern context and return value info. No output schema, but return value is explained. Sufficient for agent understanding.
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 detailed descriptions per parameter, so baseline is 3. Tool description adds overall pattern context (e.g., missionId should match orchestrator) but does not substantially enhance individual parameter meaning 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?
Description clearly states the tool submits a structured handoff to an orchestrator or recipient peer, specifies use case (finishing delegated task), and distinguishes from free-form route_to_peer.
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?
Explicitly says when to use (finishing delegated task) and contrasts with route_to_peer. Mentions missions-orchestrator pattern context. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but guidance is clear enough.
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, so description carries full burden. It clarifies the tool is for discovery (read operation) and specifies 'reachable for routing', though could mention potential network or authentication requirements.
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 wasted words, front-loaded with core action. Every sentence is essential.
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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what is listed and why. Lacks details on return format but acceptable given tool simplicity.
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; schema coverage is 100%. Description is not required to add parameter info, and baseline for zero parameters is 4.
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?
Description clearly states it lists peer Claude Code sessions reachable for routing, distinguishing it from sibling tools like route_to_peer and probe_peers.
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?
Explicitly suggests using it to discover projects for routing questions, providing clear context. Does not explicitly exclude other uses, but sibling tools cover alternatives.
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 full burden. It discloses the return fields (handle, display name, tagline, online status, mine flag) and mentions the filtering behavior. However, it does not mention potential pagination or result limits, which could affect agent expectations. Still, it covers the essential behavioral aspects for a read-only list 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 two sentences with front-loaded purpose and return value, followed by usage guidance and sibling differentiation. Every sentence contributes essential information with zero redundancy or filler.
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 (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description fully covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and distinguishing context. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke this 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 description coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description repeats the schema's definition of the 'q' parameter (case-insensitive substring match on handle/name/tagline) without adding new meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already offers. Hence, no additional value over 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 the verb 'List' and resource 'public expert agents on the hub', distinguishing it from sibling list_peers by noting that list_peers shows only the operator's own sessions. The scope is explicit: anything any operator can dispatch to via dispatch_to_agent.
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 provides explicit usage contexts: 'when the operator asks "what agents are available", "what public agents", "who can help with X"' and directly contrasts with list_peers, giving clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative.
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, so description carries full burden. Discloses blocking behavior with 15-min cap and fire-and-forget mode. Could add error handling or rate limits.
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 redundancy. Front-loaded with main action, then caveats. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Covers essential aspects: purpose, usage boundaries, mode behaviors. Lacks return value description and error handling, but adequate for a simple tool with no output schema.
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%, but description adds value by specifying the 15-min timeout for mode=ask and clarifying peer naming. Baseline 3 plus extra context.
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 action (send a prompt) and target (peer Claude Code sessions). Distinguishes from sibling 'dispatch_to_agent' for cross-tenant public agents.
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 when-not-to-use (cross-tenant public agents) and alternative tool ('dispatch_to_agent'). Also explains mode semantics (ask vs tell) and timeout.
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?
Discloses non-blocking behavior, rendering as clickable card, 15-min timeout, return value, and multi-question firing pattern. No annotations present, so description carries full burden.
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 focused paragraph, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, shape, behavior. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.
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 tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral nuances, and return value. No output schema needed; fully adequate.
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?
Description adds meaningful context beyond schema (e.g., rendering, constraints like 2-4 options), even though schema has property descriptions. Schema coverage metric is 0% but schema itself is descriptive.
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?
Clear verb (ask), specific resource (REMOTE operator via orchard-chat), and distinguishes from sibling AskUserQuestion by noting it does not block local TUI.
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 says to prefer this over AskUserQuestion for remote sessions, explains why, and notes edge case of free-form chat messages.
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?
Discloses all behavioral traits: session must be online, budgets enforced server-side, ask mode blocks for 15 min cap, tell mode is fire-and-forget, and fileIds mentioned in reply are auto-cloned. No annotations present, so description fully compensates.
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?
Single paragraph but densely packed with information. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it is front-loaded with the main action and every sentence adds value. Not overly verbose.
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?
No output schema, but description explains return value (the agent's reply) and the auto-cloning of files. Covers prerequisites, modes, and behavioral nuances. 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.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with all three parameters described. The description adds meaning beyond schema: example handle format (MRIIOT/orchard-api), clarifies prompt purpose, and explains mode timeouts. Provides valuable context.
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 invokes a published agent by handle and gets its reply. It distinguishes from sibling list_peers by explaining that list_peers only shows the operator's own sessions, not public agents. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.
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?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use (referencing a public agent owned by someone else) and when not to (not in list_peers). Also explains the two modes (ask/tell) with timeouts and the auto-cloning behavior, giving clear context for selection.
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?
Despite no annotations, the description details key behaviors: text inline up to 1MB, binary/oversized return error with metadata, access gated by role, and cross-tenant denial. This provides full transparency.
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?
Five sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, usage trigger, content handling, access control, and security. Front-loaded with the core action, no extraneous text.
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 no annotations or output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: input format, behavior for different content types, error handling, and authorization. It is self-sufficient.
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% for the single parameter, and the description adds context that fileId comes directly from a prompt (e.g., 'fileId=16'), reinforcing usage. This goes beyond the schema's 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 clearly states it reads a hub-stored file by fileId with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing only on file reading, and no sibling is a file read tool.
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 says to use when a prompt mentions fileId=N and provides context about file location. It also notes that binary/oversized files return an error, implying when not to use effectively.
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?
Given no annotations, the description fully discloses the streaming behavior: each call broadcasts a chunk live, the final call must set `done: true` to close the turn, and the consolidated text is persisted. No contradictions with any missing 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?
The description is approximately six sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then immediately provides usage guidance, protocol details, and a sibling reference. Every sentence is informative with no wasted words.
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 streaming tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description covers purpose, when to use, behavioral protocol, parameter semantics, and interaction pattern. It is fully self-contained and leaves no critical 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?
Schema coverage is 100% so parameters are already described. The description adds value by explaining the role of `done` in closing the turn, that `text` is appended incrementally, and that `chat_id` must be shared across chunks. This goes beyond the schema definitions.
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 streams a reply progressively, distinguishing it from the sibling `reply` which sends all at once. It specifies the verb 'stream' and resource 'reply', making the purpose unambiguous.
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 states when to use this tool ('when your reply is long, when you're narrating progress...') and when to use the alternative ('For short atomic replies, use `reply` instead'). Also describes the required protocol for marking the final chunk with `done: true`.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: parent directory creation, non-existence requirement, return of absolute path, ACL constraints, and resolution quirks. No contradictions.
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 slightly long but every sentence adds necessary information, starting with the main purpose, then use cases, then behavioral details, then return value. No 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers all needed context: purpose, usage, behavior, return value, and access control. It is fully sufficient for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds important context: for 'path' it explains auto-creation, existence check, and resolution; for 'fileId' it gives usage hints. This significantly supplements 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 the tool downloads a hub-stored file by fileId to a local path, and explicitly distinguishes it from read_file for binary files. This qualifies as a specific verb+resource with sibling differentiation.
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 says to use for binary files and when bytes on disk are needed, and contrasts with read_file for text, providing clear when and when-not guidance.
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:

[![channel_v1 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/clawborrator/channel_v1/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/clawborrator/channel_v1)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![channel_v1 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/clawborrator/channel_v1/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/clawborrator/channel_v1)

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/clawborrator/channel_v1'

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