Skip to main content
Glama
collin-ho

Deslop MCP Server

by collin-ho
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: deslop_analyze examines all code files for slop patterns, deslop_diff focuses on changed files from git diff, and deslop_fix performs automated fixes. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the appropriate tool based on the task.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent 'deslop_' prefix with a descriptive suffix (analyze, diff, fix), using snake_case uniformly. This predictable pattern enhances readability and reduces confusion for agents.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of analyzing and fixing AI-generated slop in code. Each tool serves a distinct role in the workflow (analysis, diff analysis, fixing), and there are no extraneous or missing tools for this focused domain.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool set provides complete coverage for the slop analysis domain: deslop_analyze for initial assessment, deslop_diff for incremental changes, and deslop_fix for remediation. This covers the core lifecycle from detection to correction without any apparent gaps.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 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

  • 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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it states what the tool analyzes, it doesn't describe behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how results are returned, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

    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 a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from pattern examples.

    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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the analysis returns (e.g., a report, scores, flagged lines), how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that presumably produces analysis output, this leaves the agent guessing about what to expect.

    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 schema description coverage is 100% (the 'path' parameter is fully documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, but doesn't need to compensate for gaps either.

    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's purpose: analyzing code files for specific AI-generated slop patterns (verbose comments, unnecessary logging, redundant error handling). It uses a specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('code files'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like deslop_diff or deslop_fix, which likely perform different operations on similar resources.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (deslop_diff, deslop_fix). It doesn't mention any prerequisites, alternatives, or contextual constraints for usage. The agent must infer usage from tool names alone, which is insufficient.

    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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies analysis of 'slop patterns' but doesn't specify what that entails, whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any constraints like permissions or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential mutation implications.

    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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded for quick understanding.

    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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'slop patterns' are, what the analysis entails, or what results to expect, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and output for a potentially complex operation.

    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% coverage with one parameter ('staged') fully described. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the action ('Analyze') and the target ('changed files from git diff for slop patterns'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'deslop_analyze' or 'deslop_fix', which likely have related purposes, so it misses full sibling distinction.

    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?

    The description provides minimal context by specifying 'changed files from git diff', but it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'deslop_analyze' or 'deslop_fix', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.

    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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool 'fixes' patterns (implying mutation) and provides examples of what gets fixed, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether changes are destructive, what permissions are required, error handling, or what happens when the tool runs (e.g., does it modify files in place?).

    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, efficient sentence that clearly communicates the core functionality. It's appropriately sized with no wasted words and is front-loaded with the main purpose.

    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?

    For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'fixing' entails (e.g., modifies files in place, creates backups), what the return value looks like, or error conditions. The examples help but don't provide complete operational context.

    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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (path and dryRun). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide additional semantic context.

    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's purpose with a specific verb ('fix') and resource ('auto-fixable slop patterns in code files'), and provides concrete examples of what gets fixed ('verbose comments, debug logging, etc.'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tools (deslop_analyze, deslop_diff), which would be needed for a perfect score.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (deslop_analyze, deslop_diff). It mentions what the tool does but gives no context about prerequisites, when it's appropriate versus alternatives, or any exclusion criteria.

    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

deslop-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

deslop-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/collin-ho/deslop-mcp'

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