Wordle MCP (Python)
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.0
- Disambiguation5/5
With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly defined as fetching Wordle solutions for specific dates, leaving no room for confusion or misselection.
Naming Consistency5/5A single tool inherently has perfect naming consistency, as there are no other tools to compare against. The tool name 'get_wordle_solution' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, which would be consistent if more tools were added.
Tool Count2/5One tool is too few for a server named 'Wordle MCP', which suggests a broader scope related to the Wordle game. While fetching solutions is a core function, the lack of tools for actions like checking guesses, getting hints, or accessing past statistics makes the set feel incomplete and under-scoped.
Completeness2/5The tool surface is severely incomplete for a Wordle-related domain. It only provides solutions for dates, missing essential operations such as submitting guesses, validating words, retrieving game rules, or accessing user statistics, which are typical in Wordle applications and would be expected from such a server.
Average 3.5/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 9 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
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.jsonto 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?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, establishing this is a safe read operation. The description adds the date range constraint (2021-05-19 to 23 days future), which is useful behavioral context not captured in annotations. It does not disclose rate limits, error cases, or return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence contains essential information (verb, resource, constraint) with minimal waste. Minor grammatical awkwardness ('to 23 days future' rather than 'into the future') slightly impacts clarity but not comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the essential operation and input constraints. However, it omits the expected date format (ISO 8601 implied by default value but not stated) and provides no information about the return value structure (absent output_schema).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by clarifying that the parameter represents a 'particular date' and specifying its valid range ('between 2021-05-19 to 23 days future'), giving clear semantics to the target_date parameter despite the schema providing only type and title.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Fetches') and resource ('the Wordle'), and adds the critical scope constraint (specific date range). While it doesn't explicitly say 'solution' or 'answer', 'Fetches the Wordle' combined with the tool name makes the purpose clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides the valid date range constraint ('between 2021-05-19 to 23 days future'), which functions as an input guideline. However, it lacks explicit 'when to use' guidance, error handling notes, or alternatives (though no siblings exist).
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:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/cr2007/mcp-wordle-python'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server