Skip to main content
Glama
damusix

Buffer MCP Server

by damusix
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    use_buffer_api executes API actions while buffer_api_help provides discovery and schema details. There is no overlap between executing and getting help, so an agent can clearly distinguish when to use each.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    Both names contain 'buffer_api', but one uses a 'use_' prefix and the other uses a '_help' suffix. This is a readable but mixed naming convention rather than a consistent verb_noun pattern.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server feels minimal, but the generic executor plus help tool is a deliberate design that keeps the surface small. It is borderline because one tool does most of the work while the other is purely informational.

    Completeness4/5

    The generic executor covers a broad range of Buffer actions, including organizations, channels, posts, and ideas, with additional actions implied by 'and more.' The help tool fills discovery gaps, though the lack of explicit typed tools for individual operations is a minor limitation.

  • Average 3.6/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.

    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
    • 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?

    There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions create/delete operations, which implies potentially destructive side effects, but it does not explain consequences, permissions, rate limits, response behavior, or whether operations are reversible. For a tool that can delete posts, this is a meaningful gap.

    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 focused sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and gives useful action examples immediately. The phrase 'and more' is slightly open-ended but acceptable for a generic wrapper tool.

    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?

    This is a generic, dynamically-shaped API wrapper with no output schema and no annotations. The description alone does not explain where to get the full action list, how to structure payloads, or what to expect back. The payload schema points to buffer_api_help, but the tool description itself leaves the agent under-equipped for correct invocation.

    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 schema already covers both parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does not need to compensate because the schema clearly documents action as a string and payload as an action-dependent object.

    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 states a clear verb-resource relationship: 'Execute a Buffer API action' with concrete examples of the families it covers (organizations, channels, posts, ideas). It does not fully distinguish itself from the sibling buffer_api_help, but the generic purpose is specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's role.

    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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus buffer_api_help or any other alternative. The payload schema does mention using buffer_api_help to discover fields, but that is not in the tool description itself, so the agent gets no explicit routing or usage context.

    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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read-only, introspection-like behavior by saying 'Get help', 'list all actions', and 'get detailed schema info'. It could add detail about output format or handling of unknown action names, but the core behavior is transparent enough for a help tool.

    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 one clear sentence, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and then detailing the two invocation modes. Every word contributes; there is no redundancy or filler.

    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 only two optional parameters, no output schema, and a simple introspection purpose, the description covers the main invocation scenarios: list everything or ask about a specific action. It could optionally clarify the return format or recommend pairing with use_buffer_api, but nothing essential to calling the tool is missing.

    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 schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions, including that 'action' can be omitted to list all actions and that 'category' filters by query or mutation. The description reinforces the two usage modes but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema states.

    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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get help on available Buffer API actions', and clearly distinguishes the two modes: listing all actions or retrieving detailed schema for a specific action. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling execute tool use_buffer_api.

    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 makes clear this is for help/schema discovery rather than executing API actions, so the intended context is inferable. However, it does not explicitly say 'use this before use_buffer_api' or state when not to use it, so exclusions and alternatives are only implied.

    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

buffer-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

buffer-mcp 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/damusix/buffer-mcp'

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