Skip to main content
Glama
daedalus

mcp-oeis

by daedalus
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a distinct purpose: fetching by ID, searching by name, and searching by integer terms. No overlap or confusion possible.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (get_sequence_by_id, search_by_name, search_by_terms).

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools cover the essential operations for an OEIS server: direct retrieval by ID and two search methods (by name and by terms). This is well-scoped without unnecessary bloat.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool surface covers the primary use cases (fetching a specific sequence and searching). A minor gap is the lack of batch retrieval or filtering by other metadata (e.g., author), but the core functionality is present.

  • Average 3.8/5 across 3 of 3 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
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • 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 convey behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the search is read-only, any rate limits, or side effects. It only states the basic function without behavioral context.

    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 long, front-loaded with the action and a useful example. No extraneous information.

    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 presence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, the description is largely complete. It could Mention that results are sorted or how many results are returned, but the output schema likely covers this.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters, but the description only adds an example for the 'query' parameter (e.g., 'Fibonacci'). It does not elaborate on the meaning of 'max_results' beyond what is in the schema. Thus, it provides minimal added 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 tool searches OEIS sequences by name or keyword with a concrete example. The name 'search_by_name' further reinforces this purpose, and it is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like 'get_sequence_by_id' and 'search_by_terms'.

    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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations. The example gives implicit context but does not compare to search_by_terms or get_sequence_by_id.

    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 bears full responsibility. It lacks behavioral details such as read-only nature, error handling for invalid IDs, rate limits, or output format. Only the basic action is stated.

    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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action, includes examples, and contains no superfluous information. Every word earns its place.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness5/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and usage context. No additional details are necessary for this straightforward lookup tool.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'id', and the description adds value by providing example IDs, which aids the agent in understanding the expected format beyond the schema's description.

    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: 'Get a sequence by its OEIS ID' with concrete examples (e.g., 'A000109', 'A000045'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_by_name and search_by_terms which are for searching rather than direct lookup.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines3/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description implies usage when you have an OEIS ID, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use alternatives (e.g., 'Use search_by_name if you don't know the ID'). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

    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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the search behavior and provides an example, but lacks details on whether the operation is read-only, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if no matches found. The example helps, but more behavioral context would be beneficial.

    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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and immediately providing a concrete example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

    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?

    The tool is simple with two parameters and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core functionality, though it could be more complete by mentioning limitations or sibling differentiation.

    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?

    With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds an example of the 'terms' parameter, but the schema already describes it as a list of integers. No additional semantics for 'max_results' are provided beyond the schema's default and description.

    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 'Search OEIS sequences by providing integer terms' with a concrete example, making the verb and resource explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_sequence_by_id' and 'search_by_name' by specifying the method (search by integer terms).

    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 when you have a list of integer terms, and the example clarifies the context. However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings or state when not to use this tool, leaving room for ambiguity.

    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

mcp-oeis MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-oeis 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/daedalus/mcp-oeis'

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