ESA MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes: create, read, update, delete, search, and get documentation. However, read_esa_post and read_esa_multiple_posts could cause confusion as they overlap in reading functionality, though the descriptions clarify single vs. multiple posts. No other significant ambiguities exist.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case throughout, such as create_esa_post and update_esa_post. The only minor deviation is get_search_query_document, which uses 'get' instead of 'read' like other retrieval tools, but this is still clear and follows the same naming style.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the count is well-scoped for managing posts in esa.io. It covers core CRUD operations (create, read, update, delete), search functionality, and documentation retrieval, which is appropriate for the domain without being overly sparse or bloated.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete CRUD coverage for posts (create, read, update, delete), along with search capabilities and detailed query documentation. This covers the essential lifecycle and operations for managing posts in esa.io, with no obvious gaps that would hinder agent workflows.
Average 3.2/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
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
- Last stable release on July 15, 2025
- 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a safe read operation, requires permissions, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or handles errors. 'Read' implies non-destructive, but this isn't explicitly confirmed, leaving gaps in transparency.
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 extremely concise with one sentence, front-loaded and zero waste. It directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words, making it efficient for quick understanding, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, usage context, return values, or behavioral traits, making it inadequate for an agent to reliably invoke this tool without additional inference or trial.
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 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'teamName' or 'postNumbers' represent, their formats, or constraints (e.g., teamName default 'my-team', postNumbers as array of numbers). The description fails to provide meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 'Read multiple posts in esa.io' clearly states the verb ('Read') and resource ('multiple posts'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_esa_post' (singular) or 'search_esa_posts'. It specifies 'multiple' but lacks details about what constitutes 'multiple' versus other read operations.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites like authentication, compare to 'read_esa_post' for single posts or 'search_esa_posts' for filtered queries, or specify use cases like batch retrieval. The agent must 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 full burden. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 concise—two short sentences with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be more structured by separating purpose from parameter notes for better clarity.
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 complexity (destructive mutation), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address return values, error handling, or important behavioral context needed for safe and effective use, leaving the agent under-informed.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'postNumber' as required but doesn't explain what it is (e.g., a unique identifier for posts) or clarify the optional 'teamName' parameter (defaults to 'my-team'). This adds minimal semantic value beyond the bare 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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a post in esa.io'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_esa_post' and 'update_esa_post' by specifying deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the platform context (esa.io) beyond the name, which slightly limits differentiation.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing postNumber), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'update_esa_post' for modification instead of deletion. The required parameter note is functional but not contextual usage advice.
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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Read' implies a safe operation, but the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output contains. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 extremely concise at just 6 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete sentence.
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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral constraints, or output format. While conciseness is good, the description lacks necessary context 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.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions no parameters at all, failing to explain what 'teamName' and 'postNumber' represent or how they should be used. With 2 parameters (one required) completely undocumented, the description adds no value beyond the bare 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 ('Read') and resource ('a post in esa.io'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'read_esa_multiple_posts' which likely serves a similar reading function but for multiple posts, leaving room for improvement in sibling differentiation.
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. With siblings like 'read_esa_multiple_posts' and 'search_esa_posts' that might overlap in functionality, there's no indication of when this single-post read is preferred over batch reading or searching, leaving usage context 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. It states the tool creates a post but lacks critical details: whether it requires authentication, what happens on success/failure, if it's idempotent, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently lists parameters in a single sentence. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from parameter details) for better readability.
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 7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It misses behavioral context, parameter details, and output expectations, leaving the agent under-informed about how to use this tool effectively.
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 description lists required and optional parameters, adding some meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't explain parameter semantics (e.g., what 'wip' means, format for 'body_md' or 'category'), so it only partially compensates for the schema gap. With 7 parameters and low coverage, this is minimal compensation.
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 ('Create a new post') and resource ('in esa.io'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_esa_post' or 'delete_esa_post' beyond the basic verb, missing explicit 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_esa_post' or 'read_esa_post'. It lists required and optional parameters but offers no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
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 a mutation operation ('Update') but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies data without structured safety hints.
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 front-loads the purpose and lists parameters concisely. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage guidance from parameter details.
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 complexity of an update operation with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or what the tool returns, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
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 description lists all parameters as 'Required' or 'Optional', which adds some semantics beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't explain what each parameter means (e.g., 'wip' or 'body_md'), leaving significant gaps in understanding despite compensating partially for the low schema coverage.
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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing post in esa.io'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'create_esa_post' beyond the verb, missing a direct comparison that would elevate it to a 5.
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 like 'create_esa_post' or 'delete_esa_post', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an existing post. It only lists parameters without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior as a retrieval operation ('retrieves comprehensive documentation') and specifies the content scope ('query syntax, operators, and search parameters'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or response format. It adequately describes core behavior without contradictions.
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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently detail the scope without redundancy. Every sentence adds value by specifying what is retrieved and why, with zero waste.
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's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is complete enough for its purpose. It clearly states what the tool does and its utility, though it could benefit from mentioning the output format or any behavioral constraints to enhance completeness.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since none are needed, and does not detract from the schema's completeness.
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 purpose with specific verbs ('retrieves', 'provides') and resources ('documentation about esa.io search queries'), distinguishing it from siblings like search_esa_posts (which executes searches) by focusing on documentation retrieval rather than data operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('to effectively search through esa posts') and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on documentation, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_esa_posts or provide exclusions. The guidance is clear but not comprehensive.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: pagination of responses, query syntax capabilities, and a strong recommendation to consult another tool for complete query usage. It doesn't cover authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling, but provides substantial operational context.
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 appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose and pagination behavior, but the extensive query examples (while valuable) make it quite lengthy. Every sentence earns its place by providing concrete usage guidance, but the structure could be improved by separating general guidance from exhaustive examples.
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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides substantial context about how to use the tool effectively. It covers query semantics thoroughly and mentions pagination. However, it doesn't explain what the response looks like (structure, fields) or address other parameters like 'order', 'sort', 'page', and 'perPage' beyond what the schema provides.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It does this exceptionally well by providing extensive examples of how to use the 'query' parameter (the only required parameter), covering various query operators and syntax patterns. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Search posts in esa.io') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'read_esa_post' (single post) and 'read_esa_multiple_posts' (likely batch retrieval without search). It explicitly mentions the resource (posts) and platform (esa.io), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (searching posts with queries) and implicitly distinguishes it from non-search siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives beyond the general reference to 'get_search_query_document' for query details.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/d-kimuson/esa-mcp-server'

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