Skip to main content
Glama
conformi-eu

conformi-search

Official
by conformi-eu
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one retrieves a knowledge report for a specific CELEX number, the other provides a timeline for a major EU act. No overlap in functionality.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent 'get_<descriptor>_<noun>' pattern: get_knowledge_article and get_legal_timeline. The naming is predictable and clear.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the set is thin for a research server, but it may be acceptable given the focused scope on pre-generated reports and timelines. It falls below the typical 3-15 range.

    Completeness2/5

    The surface is incomplete for EU legal research: there is no way to search or list available acts, nor to get details beyond the two specific functions. Significant gaps exist for an agent working with EU law.

  • Average 4.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 9 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • 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?

    Adds context beyond annotations by noting it is a research tool with primary-source citations and disclaimers about legal advice. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description reinforces safe read-only 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?

    Description is extremely concise with two sentences that convey the core purpose and key caveats, front-loaded with the main action. No wasted words.

    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 has only one required parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and its non-legal nature. Could be enhanced by hinting at the output format, but overall adequate.

    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% for the single parameter 'celex'. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., example value), so baseline score 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?

    Clearly states the tool returns an application-date timeline for a major EU act with staggered obligations, exemplified by the AI Act high-risk deadlines. It uses specific verb 'timeline' and resource 'EU act', distinguishing it from the sibling 'get_knowledge_article'.

    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?

    Mentions 'Free — no API key required' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_knowledge_article' or provide circumstances where it should not be used.

    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 mark readOnlyHint true. Description adds value by noting it's free, requires no API key, pre-generated, and not legal advice, which are behavioral traits not covered by 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, no redundancy. First sentence states core purpose and content; second adds free usage and disclaimer. Every word serves a purpose.

    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 one parameter, no output schema, and ample annotations, description sufficiently explains tool purpose, parameter meaning, output type, and behavioral context. Could briefly mention output format (e.g., whether text or URL) but still complete enough.

    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 provides pattern and example for celex parameter (100% coverage). Description enhances by clarifying it's 'for one EU legal act' and that output includes Rechtsstand metadata, adding context 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?

    Clearly states it provides a pre-generated knowledge report for one EU legal act using a CELEX number, including Rechtsstand metadata. Distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_legal_timeline' by focusing on report content rather than timeline.

    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?

    Implies usage for research via 'Research tool' and 'Free — no API key required', but does not explicitly contrast with sibling or specify when not to use. No direct guidance on alternatives.

    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

conformi-search-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

conformi-search-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/conformi-eu/conformi-search-mcp'

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