Skip to main content
Glama
cu0001

svc-mcp-server

by cu0001
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

50%
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 checks overall system status, and the other executes arbitrary SVC commands. There is no ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tools use a verb_noun pattern (check_system_status, execute_svc_command) which is consistent. Minor deviation is that the noun phrases are of different lengths, but it's still readable.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels underdeveloped for any practical SVC management use case. While a check + generic execute pattern can work in principle, it suggests the tool surface is very thin.

    Completeness2/5

    The generic execute_svc_command tool compensates for missing specific operations, but the server lacks dedicated tools for common tasks like listing volumes, managing hosts, or creating storage pools. The set is not complete for typical SVC administration workflows.

  • Average 2.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 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

  • Behavior1/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits such as destructive potential, authentication requirements, output format, and error behavior. It only says 'execute any SVC CLI command', which implies high risk but does not warn about possible destructive actions (e.g., 'rmvolume', 'rmhost') or output variability. This is a critical gap for a generic execution 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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded. It wastes no words, though one sentence could be removed by merging the two.

    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 executes arbitrary CLI commands with no output schema and no behavioral transparency, the description is insufficient. It should cover safety warnings, expected output, required permissions, and when to prefer the sibling tool. The current text does not meet the needs of an agent deciding whether to 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%, so the parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only adds the phrase 'any SVC command' which is already conveyed by the schema's dynamic example. Baseline 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 executes SVC CLI commands and highlights its generic nature. It differentiates from check_system_status by being a catch-all execution tool.

    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 check_system_status, nor does it mention any prerequisites, limitations, or when alternatives should be preferred. The agent is left without usage boundaries.

    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 only reveals the underlying command (lssystem) but does not state whether this operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The agent has no information on consequences.

    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 very short but fits the tool's simplicity. It front-loads the action and mentions the underlying command. It could be slightly more self-contained without relying on the parentheses notation.

    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 simple status check tool, the description provides adequate purpose but lacks context on output/return values, whether the command can fail, and how it differs from the sibling tool. An agent would have to guess the output format.

    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?

    The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is little for the description to add. The description confirms the tool takes no input, which is useful. A baseline of 4 is appropriate.

    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 that the tool checks system status, which is a clear verb-resource combination. However, it does not distinguish this from its sibling tool 'execute_svc_command' – both could plausibly be used to run a command like lssystem, creating 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus 'execute_svc_command'. Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine whether this tool is safer, more limited, or preferred for read-only queries.

    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

svc-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

svc-mcp-server 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/cu0001/svc-mcp-server'

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