Wise Mise MCP

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v2.1.1
Disambiguation4/5
Tools generally have distinct purposes, but 'get_task_recommendations' and 'mise_task_expert_guidance' both offer advice, and 'trace_task_chain' overlaps slightly with 'task_chain_analyst'. Descriptions help differentiate them.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools use a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_task, prune_tasks), but 'task_chain_analyst' and 'mise_task_expert_guidance' break the pattern with noun-first or lengthy names.
Tool Count5/5
10 tools cover the domain well without being excessive. Each tool has a clear role in task management, from creation to analysis to cleanup.
Completeness4/5
The set includes creation, removal, pruning, validation, tracing, and guidance. However, an explicit tool for listing all tasks or updating existing tasks is missing, which is a minor gap.
Average 3.6/5 across 10 of 10 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 is failing
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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions intelligent analysis and best practices, but does not detail side effects (e.g., file modifications), required permissions, or error conditions. This is moderately informative but leaves gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the primary action, and the second adds relevant detail. Every sentence earns its place.
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 has 5 parameters and an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains the intelligent behavior but omits prerequisites (e.g., valid project path), output expectations, or post-conditions. It does not leverage the output schema to explain return values, but that is not required.
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?
All 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond stating that parameters like domain_hint and force_complexity influence intelligent behavior. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for any missing schema details.
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 tool creates a new task with intelligent placement and configuration, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_task or get_task_recommendations. However, it emphasizes 'suggests' which could imply it only recommends rather than creates, causing slight ambiguity.
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 get_task_recommendations or analyze_project_for_tasks. The description implies it is for creating tasks, but does not specify when creation is appropriate versus when to use analysis or validation tools.
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, the description carries full burden. It discloses the dry-run safety option, but does not explain criteria for pruning, whether removal is permanent, authentication needs, or side effects. Incomplete behavioral disclosure for a destructive tool.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Slight redundancy ('redundant or outdated' then 'no longer needed, have become redundant') but overall clear and 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?
Covers the main action and dry-run option. With an output schema present, return values are handled separately. However, missing details on input prerequisites or pruning criteria leave gaps for full contextual understanding.
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. The description adds no new meaning beyond schemas, merely restating dry-run functionality. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Remove redundant or outdated tasks from the project', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'remove_task' by describing a bulk, analysis-driven cleanup and offering a dry-run mode.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for bulk cleanup and mentions dry-run vs actual removal, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remove_task' or 'analyze_project_for_tasks'. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.
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?
The description explains the types of issues identified (circular dependencies, missing dependencies, etc.), but fails to disclose whether the tool modifies state, requires special permissions, or has side effects. Without annotations, this gap leaves some behavioral uncertainty.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second expands on the types of issues found. 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?
For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core functionality and typical findings. It lacks mention of best practices sources or range of analysis scope, but is largely sufficient for the given complexity.
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 single parameter 'project_path' is fully described by the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter, so 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as validating task architecture against best practices, specifying it analyzes for concrete issues like circular dependencies and missing dependencies. This effectively communicates the purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_project_for_tasks'.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to run validation instead of general analysis or recommendations). The description implies it is for architecture validation, but lacks explicit context for tool selection.
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, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool examines project structure, package managers, languages, and frameworks, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or has no side effects. It adds context beyond the name but could be more precise.
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 concise with two paragraphs, front-loading the main purpose and then providing details. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the tool's inputs and behavior sufficiently for an analysis tool, though it could mention any prerequisites or limitations.
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 a description for project_path. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or formatting guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: analyzing a project structure and extracting strategic task recommendations. It mentions specific elements like package managers, languages, frameworks, and domains, distinguishing it from siblings like create_task or remove_task.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_task_recommendations or trace_task_chain. It implies usage through its description but lacks a direct directive or exclusion 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?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool provides insights, identifies bottlenecks, and suggests optimizations, but it does not clarify whether the tool performs mutations (e.g., 'optimize' might imply changes) or is purely analytical. It also omits details on required permissions, rate limits, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of two sentences with no waste. However, it could be slightly more structured by front-loading the primary action. It is appropriate for a simple tool with no parameters.
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 has no parameters and an output schema exists (per context signals), the description does not need to detail return values. It adequately explains the tool's function for a user familiar with the domain. Minor gap: it doesn't hint at the output's structure, but the output schema compensates.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Per the rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but that is acceptable since none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: analyzing and optimizing task execution chains. It uses specific verbs ('analyze', 'optimize') and a defined resource ('task execution chains'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'trace_task_chain' (tracing only) and 'validate_task_architecture' (validation) by covering both analysis and optimization.
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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_project_for_tasks' or 'trace_task_chain'. It lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate. The purpose is implied but no direct comparison.
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, the description carries the burden. It implies read-only behavior (analyze, show) but does not disclose potential behavioral traits like output format, authentication needs, or rate limits. Adequate but not rich.
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 two paragraphs with a clear first sentence stating the purpose. It is efficient but could be slightly more front-loaded; no wasted words.
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 has an output schema (not shown) and 100% schema coverage, the description sufficiently covers the purpose and context for a simple trace tool. It is complete without needing to explain 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which are already clear.
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 'Trace the dependency chain for a specific task' and explains it analyzes dependencies to show execution flow, which is distinct from sibling tools like 'analyze_project_for_tasks' or 'task_chain_analyst'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions it helps understand task execution order for optimizing builds and debugging, providing implied usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or give conditions for not using it.
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, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions cleanup and warnings, which is helpful, but does not specify whether removal is permanent, if permission is required, or what the output contains (output schema exists but is not referenced).
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?
Two short sentences, no fluff. The first sentence provides the core action, and the second adds key behavioral details (cleanup, warnings). Every word earns its place.
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 an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It covers the main action, cleanup, and dependency warnings. However, it could mention that it operates on the mise configuration early in the first sentence for immediate clarity.
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%, so the description adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Both 'task_name' and 'project_path' are self-explanatory. The description's mention of 'named task' slightly reinforces the parameter but does not add depth.
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 removes a specific task from a project, specifically from the mise configuration. This is a unique purpose among siblings like 'create_task' and 'prune_tasks', which handle creation or bulk removal respectively.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions cleanup and dependency warnings but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'prune_tasks' or 'validate_task_architecture'. The context of sibling tools implies it's for removing a single named task, but this is not stated.
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?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the tool provides recommendations and guidance, implying a read-only, safe operation. However, it does not disclose behavioral details such as side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. The description is adequate but lacks explicit transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is composed of three concise sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description provides a complete overview of the tool's purpose. It covers the key topics the agent can expect recommendations on.
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?
There are no parameters, so the input schema is fully covered. The description adds meaning by listing the areas of guidance (structure, naming, dependencies, optimization), which helps the agent understand what kind of recommendations to expect. Baseline 4 applies.
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 'Get general recommendations for mise task organization and best practices' and elaborates on specific aspects like structure, naming, dependencies, and optimization. This distinguishes it from siblings such as analyze_project_for_tasks (analysis) and trace_task_chain (tracing).
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit statements about when it is appropriate, when not, or how it compares to sibling tools like get_mise_architecture_rules or mise_task_expert_guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool provides advice and tips, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as response format, limitations, or whether it requires external resources.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences. The first sentence captures the core purpose, and the second adds detail. No wasted words.
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 tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description does not mention what the output contains (e.g., text, examples). For a guidance tool, stating the return type would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the description does not need to add meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100%.
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 provides 'expert guidance', 'advanced tips', 'troubleshooting advice', and 'expert recommendations' for mise task management. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_task or remove_task, which perform specific actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for getting guidance, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings, nor does it mention when not to use it. It lacks clear decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately indicates a read operation that returns architectural information. While it does not detail potential side effects or performance implications, the description is sufficient for a read-only tool with 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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the verb and resource, and the second provides additional detail. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 has no parameters and an output schema, the description effectively communicates its purpose. It could potentially mention how the architectural rules relate to sibling tools, but this is not essential for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. According to the guidelines, the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, but it also does not detract.
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 it retrieves architectural rules and patterns, explaining design principles, domain organization, and architectural decisions. The verb 'Get' and the resource 'architectural rules' are specific, and the tool is well-differentiated from sibling tools that focus on task management operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or contexts where it is most appropriate. It only describes what the tool does without usage recommendations.
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:

[![wise-mise-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/delorenj/wise-mise-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/delorenj/wise-mise-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![wise-mise-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/delorenj/wise-mise-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/delorenj/wise-mise-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/delorenj/wise-mise-mcp'

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