MetaMCP Admin MCP

Server Quality Checklist

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

Disambiguation4/5
Tools are clearly partitioned by resource type (servers, namespaces, endpoints, api_keys, instances) with distinct action verbs preventing overlap. Minor density exists between get_namespace and list_namespaces, but descriptions clarify that one retrieves detailed server membership while the other provides a simple listing.
Naming Consistency5/5
Excellent adherence to snake_case with a strict verb_noun pattern throughout all 26 tools (create_server, delete_namespace, list_api_keys, etc.). Compound verbs like bulk_import_servers and health_check follow the same convention without mixing styles or cases.
Tool Count3/5
With 26 tools, the surface exceeds the typical ideal range (3-15) and enters the heavy category (16-25+). While each tool earns its place covering full CRUD for four distinct resource types plus specialized operations (clone, toggle, import), the breadth creates a dense interface that approaches cognitive overload.
Completeness4/5
Provides comprehensive lifecycle coverage for servers and namespaces, including granular controls like toggling specific tools. Minor gaps exist for endpoints (missing update_endpoint) and API keys (lacking get single key), though these can be worked around via list operations.
Average 2.9/5 across 25 of 26 tools scored. Lowest: 1.9/5.
See the tool scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
This repository includes a README.md file.
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
Latest release: v1.0.0
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.
View server inspector
This server provides 26 tools. View schema
No known security issues or vulnerabilities reported.
Report a security issue
Are you the author?
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It states 'Delete' implying mutation, but provides no details about permanence, cascade effects on dependent resources, required permissions, or success/failure behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While brief, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. Two words fail to earn their place for a destructive operation requiring safety context and behavioral constraints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. Fails to explain what happens to the deleted endpoint, whether references are cleared, or how to verify deletion success.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage (both 'uuid' and 'instance' are documented in the schema). Since schema coverage is high, baseline is 3. The description adds no semantic clarification beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete an endpoint' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name 'delete_endpoint' with articles. It fails to distinguish from sibling deletion tools (delete_server, delete_namespace, delete_api_key) or clarify what type of endpoint this refers to.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance provided. The description does not indicate prerequisites (e.g., verifying endpoint existence), when to use versus other operations, warning about irreversibility, or relationships to create_endpoint or get_endpoint.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create' without clarifying side effects, authorization requirements, whether the operation is atomic, or what happens to the mcpServerUuids if servers don't exist.
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?
While brief (4 words), the description is too minimal to be considered appropriately informative. It wastes the opportunity to front-load critical context, though it is not verbose or redundant.
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 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain namespace semantics, relationships to servers (via mcpServerUuids), or the scope of the created resource.
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 description coverage (all 4 parameters have descriptions), the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema (e.g., no explanation of the relationship between namespace and mcpServerUuids, or valid instance name formats).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new namespace' is a tautology that restates the tool name (create_namespace → 'Create a new namespace'). It specifies the verb and resource but fails to distinguish from siblings like update_namespace or toggle_server_in_namespace, and does not explain what a namespace represents in this system.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus update_namespace, or prerequisites for creation (e.g., instance requirements). No mention of idempotency concerns or what happens if the name already exists.
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. While 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, the description omits critical details: whether deletion is permanent, what happens to contained resources (servers, endpoints), whether it requires specific permissions, or if the operation is synchronous.
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 three words long, avoiding verbosity, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. For a destructive operation with potential cascade effects, this brevity represents a lack of necessary detail rather than efficient communication.
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?
As a destructive operation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain side effects, return behavior, and resource cleanup. The current description provides none of this context, leaving agents unaware of the operation's scope and impact.
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% (uuid: 'Namespace UUID', instance: 'Instance name'), establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, examples, or formatting guidance beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a namespace' is a tautology that restates the tool name (delete_namespace) without adding specificity. It fails to distinguish this tool from sibling deletion tools like delete_server or delete_endpoint, or explain what constitutes a namespace in this context.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites for deletion (e.g., must the namespace be empty?), or warnings about the irreversible nature of the operation. The agent receives no signals about cascade effects or cleanup requirements.
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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure but fails to state whether this is a partial update (modifying only provided fields) or full replacement, whether changes are reversible, or what validation occurs. For a mutation operation affecting 5 parameters, this lack of safety and scope disclosure is inadequate.
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?
While appropriately brief at four words and properly front-loaded with the action verb, the description suffers from under-specification rather than conciseness. The brevity leaves critical gaps in meaning that require additional sentences to satisfy the 'every sentence earns its place' standard for mutation tools.
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 this is a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and zero annotations, the description should explain update semantics, field mutability, and side effects. The current single-sentence description leaves significant contextual gaps for an agent attempting to safely modify namespace configurations.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage (all 5 parameters are documented). The description adds no semantic information beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., explaining relationships between uuid/instance/name or detailing what 'mcpServerUuids' controls), warranting the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update an existing namespace' is largely tautological, merely converting the tool name 'update_namespace' into a sentence. While it identifies the resource (namespace) and action (update), the addition of 'existing' provides minimal sibling differentiation and fails to explain what a namespace represents in this context or which specific attributes can be modified.
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?
Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'create_namespace' or 'toggle_server_in_namespace'. The word 'existing' only weakly implies this is for modifications rather than creation, with no mention of prerequisites, required permissions, or when updates are preferred over deletion and recreation.
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 disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' but fails to describe what data is returned (especially critical given no output schema exists), caching behavior, or whether the endpoint must exist (error behavior).
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?
Extremely terse at three words with no wasted verbiage, but the brevity crosses into under-specification. Front-loaded with the action verb, though lacks supporting context that would justify a longer description.
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?
Incomplete for a retrieval tool with no output schema. The description fails to compensate by describing the returned data structure or content (e.g., configuration, status, metadata), leaving agents uncertain about what 'details' actually contain.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage ('Endpoint UUID' and 'Instance name'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic context about the relationship between 'uuid' and 'instance' or validation formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get endpoint details' is largely tautological, merely restating the tool name with spaces and adding the vague noun 'details'. It fails to distinguish this tool from the sibling tool 'list_endpoints' or clarify what constitutes an 'endpoint' in this system.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus 'list_endpoints' for discovery, or prerequisites like needing a valid UUID beforehand. No mention of when the optional 'instance' parameter should be supplied.
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 disclosure. While 'Create' implies mutation, the description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits typical of API key creation: specifically that this likely generates and returns sensitive credential material (usually revealed only once) and whether the operation is reversible. The agent has no indication that the return value requires secure handling.
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?
Extremely brief at four words. While this demonstrates efficiency and zero redundancy, the brevity is excessive given the lack of annotations and output schema, leaving critical behavioral information unaddressed. Structure is adequate but content is insufficient.
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 this is a credential-creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what is returned (the key material) and security implications. The omission is significant: the agent cannot infer from the schema that it must capture and store the returned secret immediately.
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%, with both 'name' and 'instance' properties fully documented in the JSON schema. The description text does not mention these parameters, but since the schema provides complete semantic coverage, the baseline score of 3 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 the action (Create) and resource (API key) but is essentially a restatement of the tool name with articles added. It fails to distinguish from sibling creation tools (create_server, create_endpoint, etc.) or clarify the scope/domain of the API key being created.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_api_keys or delete_api_key. No prerequisites mentioned (e.g., whether an instance must exist first), though the optional 'instance' parameter suggests some relationship to the instance resource.
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 of behavioral disclosure. For a destructive operation, it fails to specify that deletion is permanent and irreversible, whether it affects active requests, or what error occurs if the UUID is invalid.
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 with no redundancy or wasted words. However, while structurally concise, it is substantively under-specified for a destructive operation (which penalizes other dimensions, not conciseness itself).
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 this is a destructive operation with no annotations, no output schema, and unspecified consequences (e.g., immediate revocation vs. scheduled deletion), the description is incomplete. It relies entirely on the schema for parameter docs but fails to explain the deletion semantics.
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 description coverage (both 'uuid' and 'instance' are documented in the schema), the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, syntax constraints, or formatting guidance beyond what the schema already provides.
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 the basic action (delete) and resource (API key), making it minimally viable. However, it is largely tautological (restating the tool name 'delete_api_key') and provides no distinguishing scope compared to sibling tools like delete_server or delete_endpoint.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It fails to mention prerequisites (e.g., that the UUID must be obtained via list_api_keys first) or warn against accidental deletion when temporary disabling might be preferred.
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 zero annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to deliver. It does not disclose whether this operation overwrites existing configs on the target, generates new UUIDs, validates config compatibility between instances, or handles errors if the source server doesn't exist. 'Copy' implies non-destructive read on source, but target-side behavior (idempotency, upsert vs. fail-on-conflict) is unspecified.
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?
Extremely concise at nine words in a single sentence. Front-loaded with the action verb 'Copy'. While efficient, it may be overly terse given the complexity of cross-instance operations; the single sentence earns its place but leaves substantial contextual gaps that additional sentences should cover.
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?
Inadequate for a mutation tool performing cross-instance operations with no output schema and no annotations. Missing essential context: conflict resolution behavior (clobber vs. fail), whether the operation is synchronous or async, return value structure (new ID? success boolean?), and validation rules. For a tool with sibling 'create_server', it should clarify if this is essentially 'create from template' semantics.
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% with clear parameter descriptions already provided in the input schema. The tool description loosely reinforces the 'from one to another' relationship between sourceInstance and targetInstance, but adds no additional semantics regarding valid instance name formats, whether instances must be in the same cluster, or constraints on serverUuid format beyond what the schema already states.
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?
States a specific verb (Copy) and resource (MCP server config) with clear scope (from one instance to another). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'create_server' (which creates new configs versus copying existing ones), leaving some ambiguity for agents choosing between instantiation methods.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_server' or 'update_server'. Missing critical prerequisites such as whether the target instance must exist beforehand, connectivity requirements between instances, or permissions needed for cross-instance operations.
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 provided, placing full burden on description. While 'Create' implies mutation, the description lacks critical behavioral details: idempotency (what if name exists?), side effects (does it restart services?), propagation delays, or return value structure.
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?
Single efficient sentence with zero redundancy and clear front-loading. However, extreme brevity for a 6-parameter configuration tool with auth options limits helpful context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Minimum viable for selection given complete schema coverage. However, omits workflow context (namespace must exist first) and doesn't clarify the functional relationship between the created endpoint and the exposed namespace (proxy, mount, etc.).
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 provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all 6 parameters. Description adds no semantic clarification beyond the schema (e.g., explaining the relationship between namespaceUuid and the resulting endpoint), warranting baseline score.
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?
States clear verb (Create) and resource (endpoint) with specific scope (exposing a namespace). Effectively anchors the tool to namespace exposure, but does not proactively differentiate from similar creation tools like create_server or create_api_key.
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?
Provides no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., requiring an existing namespace), when to prefer this over direct namespace access, error conditions for duplicate names, or required permissions.
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 present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Create' without disclosing mutation semantics: conflict behavior (e.g., if name exists), idempotency, async/sync nature, or what gets returned upon success.
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?
Single efficient sentence with no wasted words. The information is front-loaded and the sentence earns its place by establishing the core operation, though it is minimally sufficient.
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 complex creation tool with 10 parameters, nested objects (env, headers), conditional required fields, and no output schema or annotations, a 9-word description is inadequate. It fails to explain return values, side effects, or success/failure behaviors.
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%, with all 10 parameters documented in the schema (including conditional requirements like 'command' for STDIO). The description adds no parameter guidance beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.
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 ('Create') and resource ('MCP server'), with scope ('on a MetaMCP instance'). However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tool 'clone_server', which also creates servers but from an existing template.
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?
Description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'clone_server', nor does it mention prerequisites such as required permissions or instance availability.
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 provided, yet description fails to disclose behavioral traits like read-only safety, error conditions (e.g., invalid namespace UUID), pagination, or the format of returned tool listings.
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?
Extremely brief at six words with no redundancy. However, it is too terse to provide complete context for a tool with multiple siblings, lacking the 'front-loaded' value of including key constraints or usage hints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple two-parameter list operation with no output schema, but missing expected details for a namespace-scoped tool in a complex API surface (error cases, return structure).
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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters. Description adds no additional semantics, examples, or formatting guidance, warranting the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.
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?
Uses specific verb 'List' with resource 'tools' and scope 'in a namespace'. Clear what it does, though it could explicitly differentiate from sibling 'get_server_tools' to reach 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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this versus siblings like 'get_server_tools' or 'get_namespace', nor any prerequisites or conditions.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention safety (read-only vs destructive), pagination behavior, or what the return payload contains (e.g., endpoint configurations, URLs, status).
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?
Extremely brief single sentence with no wasted words. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, the extreme brevity leaves significant informational gaps rather than exhibiting disciplined conciseness.
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?
inadequate for a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and operating within a complex API surface (16+ sibling tools). It does not explain what constitutes an 'endpoint' in this context, its relationship to instances/namespaces, or the structure of returned data.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'instance' parameter ('Instance name'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics (e.g., optional vs required behavior, format constraints), meeting the baseline score.
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?
Clear verb (List) + resource (endpoints) + scope (all on a MetaMCP instance). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'get_endpoint' tool or clarify when to enumerate vs. retrieve a specific endpoint.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_endpoint' or 'list_instances', and does not mention prerequisites such as requiring a valid instance name.
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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description omits return format, pagination behavior, caching, or any side effects. It does not disclose what constitutes a 'configured' instance versus other states.
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?
Extremely concise at six words. Front-loaded with the verb 'List', no filler content, and appropriately sized for a parameter-less tool. Every word earns its place.
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?
No output schema is provided, yet the description does not compensate by describing the return structure, fields, or what distinguishes an instance object. Without annotations or parameter complexity to document, the description should explain the output format but doesn't.
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 contains zero parameters, which sets a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameters that don't exist in the 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 states the action ('List') and resource ('MetaMCP instances') clearly, but fails to differentiate what an 'instance' is versus siblings like 'list_servers', 'list_namespaces', or 'list_endpoints'. In a namespace crowded with list operations, this distinction is necessary for correct selection.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling list tools (list_servers, list_namespaces, etc.). No prerequisites, filtering options, or contextual triggers are mentioned.
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 fails to mention whether results are paginated, what authorization is required, the return format, or error conditions (e.g., invalid instance name).
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 single sentence is appropriately sized for a simple list operation and contains no redundant or wasted words. However, it is front-loaded with the essential information (List all namespaces), which is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and complete schema coverage, the description minimally suffices. However, with no output schema provided, it should ideally describe the return structure or list format, which it omits.
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 and only one parameter, the schema adequately documents the 'instance' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter context (such as default behavior when omitted), but baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema is fully self-documenting.
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 identifies the operation ('List') and resource ('namespaces'), and scopes it to a 'MetaMCP instance'. The plural 'all' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_namespace' (singular), though it doesn't explicitly articulate this 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 'get_namespace' (for specific retrieval) or 'list_instances'. There are no stated prerequisites, filters, or exclusions.
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 but fails to explain what 'enable' or 'disable' actually entails (e.g., whether disabled tools reject invocations, whether changes are immediate, reversibility, or side effects on running operations). It only restates the operation type implied by the tool name.
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?
Single sentence of nine words with no redundancy or filler. The structure is front-loaded with the action ('Enable or disable') followed by the target resource. Every word earns its place despite the brevity.
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 an administrative state-management tool with 5 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the toggle's operational impact, the ACTIVE/INACTIVE state semantics, or provide context for the optional 'instance' parameter despite the 100% schema coverage.
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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'tool' and 'namespace' which loosely map to toolUuid and namespaceUuid parameters, but adds no semantic clarification beyond the schema (e.g., no explanation of serverUuid's relationship to the tool hierarchy or the optional instance parameter).
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 uses clear action verbs ('Enable or disable') and identifies the specific resource ('a specific tool within a namespace'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'toggle_server_in_namespace' or clarify when an agent should toggle a specific tool versus an entire server.
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, prerequisites for invocation (e.g., requiring the tool to exist), or the relationship to the similar 'toggle_server_in_namespace' sibling. The description offers no selection criteria.
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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to specify whether this is a partial update (PATCH) or full replacement, what happens to omitted fields, or whether the operation is atomic/reversible.
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?
Extremely concise at 5 words with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the verb 'Update'. While appropriately efficient per sentence, the overall length is insufficient for the tool's 11-parameter complexity (captured in Contextual Completeness).
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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with conditional logic (STDIO vs SSE vs HTTP), the description is inadequate. It omits critical context: required vs optional fields, relationships between 'type' and transport-specific parameters ('command'/'url'), and expected return values.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics (e.g., conditional requirements between 'type' and 'command'/'url'), but this is acceptable given the comprehensive 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 ('Update') and resource ('MCP server'), and uses 'existing' to distinguish from the sibling 'create_server'. However, it lacks scope clarification (partial vs full update) and doesn't differentiate from 'clone_server'.
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?
Only the word 'existing' implicitly hints that a UUID prerequisite is required. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. 'create_server', 'clone_server', or how to obtain the server UUID beforehand.
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. While it specifies the input format, it fails to disclose critical behavioral traits for a bulk operation: idempotency (whether it upserts or fails on existing), atomicity, partial failure handling, or side effects on the target instance.
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 with zero redundancy. Every word earns its place by specifying quantity ('bulk'), action ('import'), resource ('MCP servers'), and format constraints. However, for a complex nested operation, it may be excessively terse.
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 bulk imports (nested object schema, potential for partial failures, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, success/failure indicators, or whether existing servers are overwritten or preserved.
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% (both 'servers' and 'instance' parameters have descriptions). The tool description reinforces the 'Claude Desktop JSON format' constraint mentioned in the schema for the servers parameter but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides.
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 provides a specific action ('Bulk import'), resource ('MCP servers'), and format specification ('Claude Desktop JSON format'). The term 'bulk' distinguishes this from the sibling 'create_server' which implies single creation, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.
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 term 'bulk' implies usage context (when importing multiple servers at once), but there are no explicit guidelines on when to prefer this over 'create_server', nor any mention of prerequisites or validation requirements for the Claude Desktop format.
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. While 'Delete' implies destruction, it lacks critical safety context: irreversibility warnings, cascade effects on dependent resources, or whether the operation is atomic. For a destructive operation, this is a significant safety 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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, zero redundancy or filler. Appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 100% schema coverage and only 2 simple parameters, the description is technically complete. However, for a destructive operation with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks expected safety warnings and success/failure behavior documentation that would make it operationally complete.
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% (both uuid and instance have descriptions), establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics (format examples, how to retrieve the UUID, or what happens if instance is omitted), but the schema adequately documents the fields.
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?
States specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'MCP server' with scope 'from a MetaMCP instance'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling delete operations (delete_api_key, delete_endpoint, delete_namespace), though the resource type is implied by the name.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_server for disabling vs deleting), no prerequisites (such as needing to check server status first), and no warnings about when deletion might fail or be inappropriate.
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 does not indicate whether the operation is read-only (implied by 'Get' but not guaranteed), what happens if the UUID is not found (error vs null), or what details are returned in the absence of an output schema.
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, efficient sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, delivering maximum information in minimum space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple lookup tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally viable. However, given the absence of annotations and output schema, it lacks information about error conditions or the structure of returned details that would make it complete.
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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'by UUID' which reinforces the required parameter's purpose, but adds no additional semantic context (e.g., UUID format, where to obtain it) beyond what the schema already provides.
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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('details of a specific MCP server') and lookup method ('by UUID'). The term 'specific' and the UUID parameter implicitly distinguish it from sibling list_servers, though it doesn't explicitly contrast the two tools.
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 mentions the lookup mechanism (by UUID) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_servers or what to do if the UUID is unknown. No alternatives or prerequisites are stated.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. 'List' implies read-only operation, but description lacks details on return structure, pagination, error handling (e.g., invalid UUID), or side effects.
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?
Single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Efficiently communicates core action and scope without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple read operation with well-documented parameters, but no output schema or description of return values. Adequate for basic discovery but missing behavioral specifics expected when annotations are absent.
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% (both mcpServerUuid and instance are documented). Description mentions 'specific MCP server' which aligns with the required parameter, but adds no syntax or format details beyond 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?
Clear verb 'List' and resource 'tools registered for a specific MCP server'. Specifies 'MCP server' which distinguishes from sibling get_namespace_tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.
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 on when to use this versus get_namespace_tools or list_servers. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., server existence) or error conditions.
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 the basic read operation but fails to disclose critical behavioral details: whether returned keys are masked/partial for security, if the operation supports pagination, what 'all' encompasses (user-scoped vs admin-scoped), or what happens when the optional 'instance' parameter is omitted.
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?
Single sentence, appropriately front-loaded with action verb, zero waste words. Length is proportional to the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no nested structures).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 optional param, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description covers the basic contract. However, for a security-sensitive resource like API keys, the lack of behavioral transparency (masking, auth requirements) leaves gaps that would be necessary for safe agent operation.
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 description coverage and only one parameter, the schema already documents 'instance' as 'Instance name'. The description mentions 'MetaMCP instance' which aligns the parameter to the resource context but adds no additional semantic detail about valid instance name formats or default behavior when omitted.
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 uses a specific verb 'List' with clear resource 'API keys' and scope 'on a MetaMCP instance'. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like create_api_key or delete_api_key, the action verb inherently distinguishes it. It doesn't explicitly compare to list_instances or list_servers, but the resource clarity is good.
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 such as create_api_key or delete_api_key, nor does it mention prerequisites like authentication requirements or permissions needed to view keys.
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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Enable or disable' indicates mutation, it lacks disclosure of side effects (e.g., connection termination, traffic routing impact), the semantic implications of the optional instance parameter, or what happens if the server is already in the target state.
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?
Single sentence front-loaded with the action verbs, zero redundancy or filler text. Every word earns its place in communicating the core operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the core action is clear and parameters are fully documented in the schema, the description remains minimal for a mutation operation. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, it should ideally explain the behavioral impact of the optional instance parameter and side effects of toggling server state.
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%, meaning the structured schema already documents all parameters (namespaceUuid, serverUuid, status, instance) and their types. The description adds no semantic details beyond the schema (e.g., explaining that instance targets a specific deployment or that status uses ACTIVE/INACTIVE values), earning the baseline score for complete 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 uses specific verbs 'Enable or disable' to describe the state change operation on the resource 'server', scoped 'within a namespace'. It effectively distinguishes from toggle_tool_in_namespace by specifying the target resource type (server vs 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 alternatives like update_server, or prerequisites such as needing the server to exist or understanding when the optional instance parameter should be provided.
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 but provides minimal information. It does not state whether this is read-only, what comparison dimensions are used, or what the output format contains despite having no output schema.
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 consists of a single efficient sentence with no redundant words, providing immediate clarity on the tool's core function without extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description establishes basic functionality but fails to compensate for missing metadata by describing comparison criteria, output structure, or side effects. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 contains zero parameters (empty object), so the baseline score of 4 applies per evaluation rules. With no parameters to describe, there is no additional semantic burden on the description.
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 provides a specific verb ('Compare') and clear resources ('MCP servers' across 'MetaMCP instances'), clarifying that servers are the subject compared across instances rather than comparing instances themselves. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list_instances or clarify the comparison methodology.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_servers or list_instances. There is no mention of prerequisites or specific scenarios where cross-instance comparison is needed.
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 burden of disclosure. It indicates returned data includes servers (useful behavioral context), but fails to mention read-only safety, idempotency, or error behavior (e.g., what happens if UUID is invalid). No contradictions with annotations.
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?
Single sentence of seven words with zero waste. The phrase 'including its servers' efficiently conveys重要 behavioral detail without verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description adequately conveys the core return value (namespace details with servers) but leaves gaps regarding error handling, the significance of the optional instance parameter, and permission requirements.
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% with both parameters fully described (UUID and instance name). The description adds no explicit parameter guidance, meeting the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas where the schema carries the semantic load.
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?
Provides specific verb (Get) + resource (namespace) and clarifies scope by mentioning included servers. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling get_namespace_tools or clarify the UUID-based lookup vs list_namespaces.
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 provided on when to use this versus list_namespaces (for discovery) versus get_namespace_tools. No mention of the optional 'instance' parameter's role in multi-instance deployments.
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 provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. States read operation ('List') but omits return format (full objects vs summaries), pagination behavior, rate limits, or auth requirements. Minimal behavioral context for a tool returning potentially large datasets.
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?
Single sentence, 8 words, front-loaded with action verb. Zero redundancy or filler. Every word earns its place with precise technical terminology.
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?
Adequate for low-complexity tool (1 optional parameter, flat schema). 'MetaMCP' provides domain context. Minor gap: no output schema exists, could briefly hint at return value structure (list of server objects).
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% (instance parameter fully documented), establishing baseline 3. Description mentions 'MetaMCP instance' reinforcing the parameter domain but adds no syntax details, format constraints, or examples beyond 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?
Description provides specific verb (List) + resource (MCP servers) + scope (all, on a MetaMCP instance). Clearly distinguishes from sibling 'get_server' (singular retrieval) and 'list_instances' (different resource type) through precise wording.
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 word 'all' implies bulk enumeration use case, distinguishing from 'get_server', but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives. No mention of when the 'instance' parameter is required despite it being conditionally optional.
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 disclosure burden. It clearly states the core operation but lacks critical behavioral context: it does not specify the output format, what constitutes success/failure, whether checks are read-only (implied but not confirmed), timeout behavior, or if failed checks throw exceptions versus return error objects.
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 single sentence is front-loaded with the action and contains zero wasted words. Every term ('Check', 'connectivity', 'all configured MetaMCP instances') conveys essential operational scope 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?
Given the tool's low complexity (zero parameters, no mutations) and clear purpose, the description is nearly sufficient. However, lacking an output schema, it should ideally describe what health status information is returned to make the tool fully actionable.
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?
With zero parameters, the baseline score is 4 per evaluation rules. The description appropriately makes no mention of parameters since none exist, and the empty schema requires no semantic elaboration.
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 'Check connectivity to all configured MetaMCP instances' provides a specific verb (Check), clear resource (connectivity), and precise scope (all configured MetaMCP instances). It effectively distinguishes this diagnostic tool from sibling CRUD operations like create_server or list_instances.
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?
While the purpose implies this is for monitoring/diagnostic scenarios, the description provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_instances for status checking, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions for use.
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:

[![MetaMCP-Admin-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/danielrosehill/MetaMCP-Admin-MCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/danielrosehill/MetaMCP-Admin-MCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![MetaMCP-Admin-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/danielrosehill/MetaMCP-Admin-MCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/danielrosehill/MetaMCP-Admin-MCP)

How to claim the server?

If you are the author of the server, you simply need to authenticate using GitHub.

However, if the MCP server belongs to an organization, you need to first add glama.json to the root of your repository.

{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

Then, authenticate using GitHub.

Browse examples.

How to make a release?

A "release" on Glama is not the same as a GitHub release. To create a Glama release:

Claim the server if you haven't already.
Go to the Dockerfile admin page, configure the build spec, and click Deploy.
Once the build test succeeds, click Make Release, enter a version, and publish.

This process allows Glama to run security checks on your server and enables users to deploy it.

How to add a LICENSE?

Please follow the instructions in the GitHub documentation.

Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

If the license does not appear on the server after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

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.

Latest Blog Posts

Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
By punkpeye on April 3, 2026.
mcp
The Hackers Who Tracked My Sleep Cycle
By punkpeye on March 26, 2026.
security
Open Source Has a Bot Problem
By punkpeye on March 19, 2026.
open source

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/MetaMCP-Admin-MCP'

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