convergeqa-mcp

Official

by convergeqa

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a unique combination of feature (critique/iterate) and action, making them easily distinguishable. There is no overlap as the two feature sets are parallel and each action within a feature is distinct.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'convergeqa_{feature}_{action}' in snake_case. The naming is predictable and logical, with no mixing of conventions.
Tool Count4/5
With 16 tools covering two parallel workflows, the count is slightly above average but entirely appropriate for the domain. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the set is well-scoped without being excessive.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of both Critique and Iterate reviews: start, status, list sessions, get session details, packet retrieval, export, templates, and decisions. Minor gaps like update or delete are not essential for this agent-driven workflow.
Average 2.6/5 across 16 of 16 tools scored. Lowest: 2/5.
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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions 'private authenticated' but does not explain authentication requirements, whether the operation is read-only or destructive, or any other behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single vague sentence; it is under-specified rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 18 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete, lacking information on what the tool returns or how to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, and with schema description coverage at only 39%, it fails to compensate for undocumented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('Critique agent review'), but it is vague about what a 'Critique agent review' entails and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'convergeqa_iterate_start' or other critique tools.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions for its use.
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?
No annotations exist, yet the description only says 'Submit ... decisions' without disclosing behavioral traits like authentication requirements, side effects, or data handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is too brief (4 words) and lacks structure; conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete and fails to provide necessary context.
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?
With only 38% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to the parameters; critical ones like 'decisions' and 'session_id' are unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action 'Submit' and the resource 'delegated Critique decisions', but it is vague and does not differentiate from sibling tools like convergeqa_critique_start or convergeqa_iterate_decide.
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?
No usage guidance is provided; there is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives.
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?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose all behaviors. It only says 'submit delegated Iterate decisions' without explaining what happens, side effects, or requirements like auth or session state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but it sacrifices informativeness. It is not front-loaded with key details and does not earn its place given the tool's complexity.
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?
With no output schema, 8 parameters, and a vague description, the tool definition is incomplete. The agent lacks understanding of what 'submitting delegated Iterate decisions' entails or returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 38%, yet the description adds no information about parameters. It does not explain the role of session_id, decisions, action, or others, leaving the agent unsupported.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'submit' and resource 'delegated Iterate decisions', but it is too vague and does not distinguish from sibling tools like convergeqa_critique_decide. The context of 'Iterate decisions' is unclear.
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?
No information is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, context, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent without guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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 fails to indicate whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or any side effects. The minimal statement 'List owner-authenticated Iterate sessions' does not convey safety or mutability traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but likely too brief, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity. It is front-loaded with the verb, but important context about parameters and behavior is missing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a session is, what output to expect, or how to use parameters. The agent has insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly.
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 50%, but the description adds no parameter details whatsoever. The schema already documents some parameters (base_url, api_key_env, service_account_key_env), but output, credential_kind, and redact_private_urls lack descriptions. The tool description does nothing to compensate for these gaps.
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 ('List') and the resource ('owner-authenticated Iterate sessions'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'convergeqa_iterate_session' (singular) that likely returns a single session. The term 'owner-authenticated' adds specificity but could be clearer.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'convergeqa_iterate_session'. There is no discussion of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'owner-authenticated', implying an auth requirement, but does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or side effects. The fetch operation is presumably non-destructive, but this is not stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but severely underspecified for a tool with 7 parameters. It lacks necessary detail, making it under-informative rather than effectively concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is highly incomplete. It provides only the basic purpose and omits return values, error scenarios, and parameter usage guidance.
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 43%, meaning some parameters lack descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level information and does not compensate for the gaps. For example, 'session_id' is required but not explained.
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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'Critique session packet', adding 'owner-authenticated' for context. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like convergeqa_critique_packet or convergeqa_critique_sessions, which could cause confusion.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit usage contexts, exclusions, or mentions of prerequisites, leaving the agent to guess.
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, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'List', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm safety, mention side effects, rate limits, or authentication details beyond the schema. More context is needed for a safe tool.
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 concise sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the core action. It earns its place without fluff, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, 50% coverage, no output schema, no annotations, many siblings), the description is minimal. It does not explain return format, behavior on errors, pagination, or how 'API-visible' relates to the configured credential. Inadequate for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 50% (3 of 6 parameters have descriptions in schema), yet the description adds no information about any parameter. It fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters (output, credential_kind, redact_private_urls) and adds no value beyond the schema.
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 ('List') and resource ('ConvergeQA templates'), and adds context with 'API-visible' and 'for the configured credential'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'convergeqa_iterate_templates', though the name implies the 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., convergeqa_iterate_templates) or when not to use it. The agent must rely solely on the tool name to infer usage context.
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, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Fetch...status' and fails to mention side effects, authentication requirements, error responses, or any conditions. The agent has no insight into behaviors beyond basic fetching.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, achieving conciseness. However, it is too brief to be informative, sacrificing completeness for brevity. It could add structured context without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, many siblings), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, status meanings, error handling, or how output relates to the job_id. The tool's behavior is opaque to the agent.
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 50%, but the tool description adds no semantic detail for any parameter. It does not explain the required job_id format or optional parameters like redact_private_urls. The description should have compensated for missing schema descriptions but did not.
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 specifies the verb 'Fetch', the resource 'Critique job status', and includes 'owner-scoped' scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'convergeqa_critique_start' which creates jobs, but the term 'owner-scoped' could be more explicit.
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 alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.
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, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'private authenticated' but does not elaborate on authentication mechanism (e.g., API key via environment variable). It fails to mention whether the start is asynchronous, what the response contains, or any side effects like costs or resource consumption.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, which is front-loaded and easy to read. However, given the tool's complexity (18 parameters, many siblings), this brevity sacrifices necessary detail. It is not overly long, but it is under-informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 18 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings. The description provides almost no context about the tool's purpose within the broader workflow, how to set up authentication, what 'Iterate agent review' entails, or what the agent should expect after starting. It is severely incomplete.
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 coverage is only 39%, yet the description adds no parameter explanations. It repeats nothing about 'models', 'prompt', 'credential_kind', etc. The description does not compensate for the low coverage, leaving agents to infer parameter usage from the schema alone.
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 specifies the verb 'Start' and the resource 'Iterate agent review', with qualifiers 'private authenticated'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling critique tools. However, it does not explain what 'Iterate' means versus 'Critique', leaving some ambiguity.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like convergeqa_critique_start or other iterate tools. No mention of prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios. The description provides no usage context.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'owner-scoped' without explaining what that means for behavior, side effects, or prerequisites. The tool fetches status, but no details on authentication, rate limits, or error handling are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise. However, it is under-specified and lacks structure; it does not earn its place by providing sufficient information. A balanced score of 3 reflects acceptable brevity but inadequate content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many siblings, the description is extremely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's scope, return format, or how it relates to other tools. The agent would likely need additional context to use it correctly.
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 50% (3 of 6 parameters have descriptions), but the required parameter job_id lacks description. The tool's description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify what job_id represents or how to obtain it. The baseline of 3 due to partial coverage is not improved.
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 verb 'fetch' and the resource 'Iterate job status', indicating it retrieves status information. The term 'owner-scoped' hints at a restriction but is not fully explained. This distinguishes it from some siblings like iterate_start or iterate_decide, but not fully from iterate_session which might also relate to job status.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools with similar names (e.g., convergeqa_iterate_session, convergeqa_critique_status), but the description does not provide any context for selection or exclusion.
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?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Fetch owner-authenticated Iterate session packet.' It does not disclose any behavioral details such as side effects, authentication requirements beyond 'owner-authenticated', rate limits, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It is not overly verbose, but it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.
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 tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, error handling, or how the parameters interact, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to correctly invoke the tool.
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 43%, but the description adds no parameter-level information. It does not explain the purpose of the required 'session_id' or other parameters like 'output' and 'redact_private_urls', leaving the agent to rely solely on the incomplete schema descriptions.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'Iterate session packet', with 'owner-authenticated' adding context. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like convergeqa_iterate_packet or convergeqa_iterate_sessions, which might have similar purposes.
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?
No usage guidance provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the similar sibling tools, or any prerequisites.
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, the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions 'owner-authenticated' but does not explain write behavior (e.g., overwrite, append), error handling, or rate limits. The optional write is mentioned but lacks detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence) but lacks structure. It is front-loaded with the core action, but given 7 parameters and no output schema, it is underspecified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 7 parameters, multiple siblings, and no output schema, the description provides almost no context. It does not explain what a 'packet' is, the meaning of 'owner-authenticated', or how to use the output path. Incomplete guidance.
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 coverage is only 43%, yet the description adds no parameter information. It hints at the 'output' parameter but does not explain session_id, base_url, or credential settings. The description fails to compensate for low schema coverage.
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 uses specific verb-resource pair 'Fetch owner-authenticated Iterate packet JSON' and distinguishes from sibling tools like convergeqa_iterate_session or convergeqa_iterate_status. 'Iterate packet' clearly separates from critique packet tools.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many similar siblings (decide, session, status, etc.), the lack of usage context is a significant gap.
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?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (file overwriting, permission requirements), error handling, or rate limits. Only mentions 'owner-authenticated' implying authentication is needed, but lacks depth.
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?
Extremely concise single sentence, but this brevity sacrifices valuable information that could be included without excessive length.
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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description fails to cover authentication method, file path constraints, error scenarios, and return behavior. It is insufficient for correct invocation.
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?
With only 43% schema description coverage, the description should explain key parameters. It provides no parameter information, leaving the agent to rely solely on the incomplete 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 describes the action (download), the specific resource (owner-authenticated Critique export ZIP), and the target (caller-selected path). Distinguishes from sibling tools such as convergeqa_critique_decide and convergeqa_critique_start.
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?
No guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings or alternatives. The description does not provide context on prerequisites or conditions for use.
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 must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions fetching and optional file writing, but does not clarify whether it modifies server state, requires authentication details (though parameters exist), or what happens on file write conflicts. It also does not discuss rate limits, data size, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but overly brief. It lacks structured information and does not front-load critical details like required parameters (session_id) or authentication prerequisites. Being too short can lead to ambiguity.
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?
The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, yet the description does not explain what a 'Critique packet' is, how the output is used, or how to configure authentication. It fails to provide adequate context for an agent to use it correctly without additional knowledge.
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 coverage is only 43%, meaning many parameters (session_id, output, credential_kind, redact_private_urls) lack descriptions. The description does not explain these parameters beyond the basic fetch/write action. For example, session_id is not described at all, and credential_kind options are not explained. The description adds minimal semantic 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 clearly states the verb 'fetch', the resource 'Critique packet JSON', and an optional side effect of writing to a path. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like convergeqa_critique_export (likely exports in another format) and convergeqa_critique_start (starts a session). The mention of 'owner-authenticated' adds specificity.
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 the many sibling tools. It does not include when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions. An agent would have no context to differentiate between convergeqa_critique_packet, convergeqa_critique_export, or convergeqa_iterate_packet.
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?
No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions 'owner-authenticated' as a behavioral filter but omits details about pagination, sorting, or what fields are returned. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.
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 extremely concise at four words, with no wasted text, though it could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.
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 simple 'list' operation but with 6 parameters (mostly authentication-related), no output schema, and half of parameters undocumented, the description is incomplete. It does not mention authentication requirements or configuration steps.
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 50% (only 3 of 6 parameters have descriptions) and the tool description adds no information about parameters. The agent must infer meaning from parameter names and defaults alone.
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 action 'List' and the resource 'Critique sessions', adding the constraint 'owner-authenticated' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'convergeqa_iterate_sessions' and the singular 'convergeqa_critique_session'.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or usage context beyond the literal action.
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, the description must disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, side effects, or rate limits. 'Owner-authenticated' hints at auth but doesn't explain mechanism, and no mention of write operations, idempotency, or potential impacts.
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 sentence, front-loaded with key action. No wasted words, but could benefit from slight expansion to improve completeness without becoming verbose.
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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the export contains, how authentication is handled, what the output path format should be, or what happens on success/failure.
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 43% (3/7 parameters described). The description adds no parameter-specific context beyond mentioning 'caller-selected path' for output. It fails to clarify the meaning of session_id, redact_private_urls, or credential_kind.
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 ('download'), resource ('Iterate export ZIP'), and target ('caller-selected path'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like convergeqa_iterate_start or convergeqa_iterate_decide.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical workflow, or scenarios where other iterate tools would be more appropriate.
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?
No annotations provided, so description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states a basic action without mentioning side effects, permissions, or what 'API-visible' entails.
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 sentence with no fluff, front-loaded with the core action. Efficiently communicates the 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?
With 6 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It omits how templates relate to other tools, output format, or any configuration details.
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 coverage is 50%, but description adds no meaning to parameters like 'output' or 'redact_private_urls'. It does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.
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', the resource 'ConvergeQA templates', and the scope 'API-visible for the configured credential', which is specific and distinct from sibling tools.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like convergeqa_iterate_session or convergeqa_iterate_start. Missing context for selecting this tool.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/convergeqa/convergeqa-mcp'

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