Skip to main content
Glama
danielrosehill

BTRFS Snapper MCP

by danielrosehill
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have completely distinct purposes: btrfs_health monitors filesystem health, and snapper manages snapshots. There is no overlap in functionality, so an agent can easily distinguish when to use each.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tool names are descriptive and use a clear style (btrfs_health uses prefix 'btrfs_', snapper uses the application name). While there is no strict pattern like verb_noun, the names are intuitive and consistent in being self-explanatory.

    Tool Count2/5

    Only two tools for a complex domain like BTRFS management is minimal. Each tool bundles many sub-actions, which could be separate tools for better discoverability. The low count suggests an incomplete surface for tasks like defragmentation or advanced configuration.

    Completeness4/5

    The tools cover essential BTRFS operations: health monitoring (usage, errors, scrub, balance) and snapshot management (create, delete, rollback, diff, cleanup). Missing are direct balance initiation or defragmentation, but these are covered by status checks, making the set fairly comprehensive for core tasks.

  • Average 4.5/5 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

  • 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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    No annotations provided so description carries full burden. It discloses sudo usage and default mount, but doesn't explicitly state whether actions are read-only or if they can trigger side effects. Actions appear to be monitoring only, but not explicitly confirmed.

    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?

    Well-structured with bullet points and examples. Front-loaded with purpose. Concise yet comprehensive. Every sentence adds value.

    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?

    No output schema, but actions are self-explanatory. Covers key aspects like default mount, sudo requirement, and common examples. Lacks details on error handling or return format, but adequate for the tool's simplicity.

    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?

    Schema coverage 100%, baseline 3. Description adds significant value: explains each action in detail, provides usage examples, and clarifies the 'device' parameter usage. Exceeds baseline with rich context.

    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 checks BTRFS filesystem health and status, and lists specific actions (usage, devices, stats, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'snapper' implicitly via different purpose.

    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?

    Provides examples for common actions and mentions default mount and sudo usage. However, lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives beyond sibling name.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior5/5

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

    No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses sudo usage, reboot requirement for rollback, default config, and cleanup algorithms – comprehensive 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.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    Well-structured with sections and bulleted actions; front-loaded with purpose. Slightly lengthy due to example redundancy, but still clear and organized.

    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?

    Covers all actions, parameters, and operational context (sudo, default config). No output schema, but examples imply outputs. Sufficient for agent to invoke correctly.

    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 covers 100% of parameters. Description provides examples and additional context (e.g., default config from env var) that enhance schema descriptions, justifying above baseline.

    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?

    Clearly states 'Manage BTRFS snapshots via Snapper' and lists all eight supported actions. Distinguishes from sibling 'btrfs_health' which likely deals with health checks.

    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?

    Provides examples for each action and mentions default config and sudo usage. Though it doesn't explicitly exclude scenarios for sibling tools, the action list and context make when-to-use clear.

    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

BTRFS-Snapper-MCP MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

BTRFS-Snapper-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/danielrosehill/BTRFS-Snapper-MCP'

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