boris-mcp

by devenv

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: informational (guide, about, whoami), knowledge (projects, design_decisions, doctrine), messaging (send_message, my_messages, inbox, reply), and administration (access_requests, grant, revoke, activity). No two tools have overlapping purposes.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent pattern of lowercase snake_case, with single words or underscore concatenations (e.g., design_decisions, send_message, access_requests). No mixing of conventions like camelCase or PascalCase.
Tool Count4/5
17 tools is slightly above the typical well-scoped range (3-15), but each tool covers a necessary function for the server's stated purpose (personal knowledge, updates, messaging, access control). The count feels justified given the comprehensive scope.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers all apparent use cases: getting to know Boris (guide, about, projects, design_decisions, doctrine, stack), staying updated (whats_new), communicating (send_message, my_messages, inbox, reply), and managing access (access_requests, activity, grant, revoke). No critical gaps are present.
Average 4/5 across 17 of 17 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 4 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 passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions 'Tier: public' which hints at access, but does not disclose whether the tool reads data, checks code, or produces output. No side effects or behaviors are described.
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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded, but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. The information is minimal and could be more informative without adding length.
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?
With no output schema and multiple siblings, the description should clarify what this tool uniquely offers. It fails to differentiate from 'guide', 'doctrine', or 'projects', making it incomplete for an agent to decide which tool to invoke.
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 has no parameters, so there is nothing to add beyond the schema. The description provides some context about the tool's content (languages, patterns, discipline), which is acceptable for a parameterless tool.
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 'Languages, architectural patterns, and engineering discipline — the checkable kind' is abstract and does not clearly state what action the tool performs or what resource it provides. It could be documentation, a linter, or a reference, but the purpose is vague, especially when compared to siblings like 'guide' or 'doctrine'.
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 tool versus its siblings. Among tools like 'guide', 'doctrine', and 'design_decisions', there is potential overlap, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative mentions.
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?
The description mentions 'Tier: public' which hints at access level, but does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, idempotency, or what the tool returns. Without annotations, the description carries full burden and is insufficient.
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 very concise: two short sentences. It could include more detail without harming conciseness, but it is efficiently written for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no parameter descriptions, so the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., contact methods). It only states 'How to reach Boris' without specifying the output format.
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?
No parameters are defined, so baseline is 4. The description adds no param information, which is acceptable given zero parameters.
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 'How to reach Boris' clearly communicates the tool's purpose: providing contact information for Boris. It is specific enough to distinguish it from other tools like 'about' or 'whoami'.
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 tool versus alternatives. The description only states the purpose, with no context about scenarios or prerequisites.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a retrieval tool (no side effects implied) but does not mention auth, rate limits, or response details. The phrase 'without threads dying quietly' adds some context but is not explicit about safety.
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 short (two sentences plus a tier line) and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value except possibly 'Tier: public' which is redundant. No wasted text, but could be slightly more structured.
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 no output schema, description should clarify return values. It mentions each rule has why and lint check but not structure or format. For a simple retrieval tool with one optional parameter, it is moderately complete but lacks detail on response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It states 'Call with no argument for all' for the optional rule parameter, but does not explain allowed values, format, or how specific rules are specified. The default value is hinted but semantics are minimal.
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 that doctrine is a set of rules for running life or agents out of files, with each rule including rationale and lint checks. It distinguishes itself from siblings like guide and about by specifying its focus on ops-lint's hygiene rules, making the purpose specific and identifiable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit usage instruction ('Call with no argument for all') but does not provide when-not-to-use or compare with alternative tools. The context implies it is for retrieving doctrine rules, but lacks exclusions or alternatives.
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?
Discloses key behaviors: immediate send (no queue/draft), consent-carrying, caller must be owner, reply lands in recipient's my_messages. With no annotations, it carries the burden well, though could mention rate limits or further auth details.
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?
Efficiently uses a few sentences to convey purpose, comparison, parameter details, and tier. Front-loaded with 'Answer a message.' Could be slightly more structured, but no waste.
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 complexity and lack of output schema, it explains the interaction with inbox/my_messages and the immediate nature. Missing error conditions, but overall sufficient for typical use.
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?
Adds meaning to 'to' and 'thread' (explaining source and threading). However, 'body' receives no additional description beyond the schema name, and schema coverage is 0%, so description only partially compensates.
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?
Description clearly states 'Answer a message' as the verb and resource, distinguishing it from sending new messages (sibling send_message) by emphasizing it as a reply. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from send_message, so it's not 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides some guidelines: 'to' must be from inbox, 'thread' should echo the conversation. But lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like send_message, and no when-not-to-use conditions.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the parameter behavior and indicates a 'Tier: public' access level, but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if there are any 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?
Two efficient sentences plus a one-word line. The first sentence immediately conveys the tool's purpose, and every word 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 simple listing tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter behavior. It could mention the output format briefly, but it's nearly complete.
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 schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the practical effect of the only parameter (include_private=False for public repos). This adds clarity beyond the schema's default value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists systems Boris has built, each with architectural notes, making its purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'about' or 'whoami' by focusing on specific projects.
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 its many siblings. It only gives a parameter hint (include_private=False for public repos), but does not explain selection criteria relative to other tools.
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, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the call is consent-carrying, explains the subject's fallback state, and clarifies that revoking a never-assigned subject is a no-op. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the basic action.
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 at three sentences plus a tier label, with the main action front-loaded. Almost no wasted words, though a more structured format with an explicit parameter definition would be ideal.
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?
The description covers key behavioral aspects (consent, no-op, tier), but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or preconditions (e.g., must be an existing user). With no output schema or annotations, these gaps reduce completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given 0% schema description coverage, the description must define the parameter. It introduces 'subject' but does not explicitly describe what it represents (e.g., a user ID or identifier). The context implies it's the entity to revoke, but the definition is insufficient.
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 action: 'Remove a subject's circle assignment.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'grant' (add assignment) and 'access_requests' (list).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context about consent (calling this IS the approval) and behavior for non-assigned subjects (no-op that records intent). It also specifies 'Tier: owner' indicating who should use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use.
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 present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the tier as 'public' (indicating no access restrictions) but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects. For a parameterless info tool, this is adequate but not thorough.
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 short sentences) with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the core purpose and a usage hint ('Start here'), making it efficient for an agent to parse.
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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's purpose and access level. However, it could briefly mention the nature of the output (e.g., 'returns a text description of Boris and his projects') for more 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, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter meaning because none exist. Per guidelines, baseline for 0 parameters is 4, which 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 provides information about 'who Boris is and what he builds.' It includes a directive 'Start here,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'whoami' (likely about current user) and 'guide' (a guide). The purpose is specific and unambiguous.
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 initial usage with 'Start here,' but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'whoami' or 'guide.' No exclusions or context are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage.
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, the description carries full burden and discloses key behaviors: the call itself constitutes approval ('consent-carrying'), the assignment takes effect on the subject's next call, outranks token claims, and requires owner tier. This goes beyond basic description, though some details (e.g., error cases) are missing.
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: a single sentence for the main action, followed by focused explanatory details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core operation.
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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers behavior, auth requirement ('Tier: owner'), and parameter semantics for subject. It lacks return value or confirmation details, but overall provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains 'subject' as the 'sub' claim from access_requests(), adding precision. However, 'circle' receives no additional meaning beyond its name. The description provides partial value but not full parameter clarity.
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 action ('Assign a subject to a circle'), specifying the verb and both resources. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'revoke' (opposite action) and 'access_requests' (viewing requests), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 granting circle membership, contrasting with 'revoke' for removal, but it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned among the 17 sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses ordering (oldest-first), pagination (cursor-based 'since' parameter), polling behavior ('keep polling while count == limit'), and access tier ('Tier: owner'). It implies a read-only operation ('owner's read'). However, it does not describe the output message structure or mention rate limits or error cases.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses three concise paragraphs. Every sentence adds value: purpose, cursor pattern, polling, and access tier. Minor redundancy (e.g., 'oldest first' mentioned twice) does not detract significantly. Could be slightly tighter but overall 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover what the agent needs to invoke and interpret results. It covers the invocation pattern well (cursor, polling) but lacks details on the message structure returned (e.g., fields, formats). This gap reduces completeness for an agent that must parse the output. However, for a simple list tool with known sibling patterns, it is partially sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the 'since' parameter as a cursor from previous calls and its usage for incremental reads. It mentions that 'limit' defaults to 50 and implies its role in pagination. A full description of 'limit's meaning could be added, but the explanation is adequate for a simple pagination pattern.
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 'Every inbound message, oldest-first within a page', specifying the verb (list/read) and resource (inbound messages from strangers). It distinguishes from siblings like send_message (write) and my_messages (own messages) by positioning itself as the owner's read of messages sent by strangers via send_message().
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context: use this to read inbound messages from strangers, and mentions cursor pattern shared with whats_new and access_requests. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it or provide alternatives, the sibling tool names and description give enough context for decision-making.
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?
The description discloses the tool's behavior well: it returns the subject, circle, and access request flag, and clarifies the 'anonymous' case. It also mentions that additional circles exist but are not named, showing transparency about response limitations. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it.
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 reasonably concise, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. It provides necessary details without excessive verbosity. Minor improvements could tighten phrasing, but it is effective and not wasteful.
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?
The description fully explains the tool's output components (subject, circle, access request) and addresses edge cases (anonymous, unlisted circles). With no output schema, the description must cover the return value semantics, and it does so comprehensively.
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, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by explaining what is returned, which is relevant context despite no parameter documentation being needed. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets that expectation.
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: returning who the server thinks you are and what capabilities that grants. It explicitly lists the return values (subject, circle, access request status) and explains edge cases like 'anonymous'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'about' or 'guide', which serve different informational purposes.
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 identity and authorization checks, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites is provided, which is acceptable given its simplicity. However, explicit usage context would improve the score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is dynamically derived from the registry, cannot describe refused tools, and that special callers get additional runbook content. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but for a 0-parameter info tool this is adequate.
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 informative and well-structured, with the main purpose front-loaded. It includes multiple relevant details but could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.
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 no output schema, the description explains the tool's return in general terms (answers 'what can I do' and 'next step', plus runbook for special callers). It is largely complete for its role as a guide, though the exact format of the response is not specified.
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 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns and its dynamic nature, going beyond the empty 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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as a guide to what the user can do and next steps, and distinguishes it from the sibling whoami by explicitly contrasting 'what can I do' vs 'who am I'. It also positions itself as the entry point ('front door').
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is the first tool to consult and differentiates from whoami, but does not explicitly state when to use it over other siblings like about or projects. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.
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, the description fully covers behavior: returns only replies to you, oldest-first, cursor-based pagination, structural isolation, and identity derivation. It lacks explicit mention of authentication but implies it via 'verified caller identity'.
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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by pagination details and isolation. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value, and the structure is logical.
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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers core functionality, pagination, and isolation. It could mention return fields (e.g., reply structure), but overall it is complete enough for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds meaning: explains 'since' as a cursor from previous calls and 'limit' as page size with default 20. This compensates well for the bare 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?
The description clearly states it returns replies addressed to you, oldest-first. It distinguishes from siblings like 'inbox' (all messages) and 'send_message' by focusing on replies to the user only, similar to 'whats_new' but for replies.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises polling at the start of a session like 'whats_new'. It explains pagination with the 'since' cursor and how to drain the backlog. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools for other scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses read-like behavior (listing), default status, pagination mechanics, and owner tier. Doesn't explicitly state safety (e.g., read-only), but implies it. Good detail for a list endpoint.
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 paragraphs, appropriately front-loaded with core purpose. Some repetition (e.g., 'the ones still waiting on you'), but overall efficient. Could be slightly more compact, but not overly verbose.
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 3 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter behavior, pagination, and tier. Lacks explicit return value description, but for a list tool it's reasonably complete. Validates well against complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, making description essential. It explains status default and filtering, since cursor semantics (referencing whats_new), and hints at limit via 'count == limit' pagination. Adds significant value beyond bare 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?
The description clearly states the tool lists access requests and their status ('Who has asked for access and what happened to them'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like grant/revoke by focusing on listing rather than modifying.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides specific guidance: every new subject gets a line, status defaults to 'pending', use status='' for full history, and cursor-based pagination with since. Lacks explicit mention of when to use alternatives like grant/revoke, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description fully discloses behavior: it records denials, assignments, revocations; notes redaction difference; explains cursor-based pagination and polling mechanics. Transparent about what the tool does and its quirks.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with opener, content, filter details, pagination note, and tier. Somewhat verbose but each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, but description explains what entries contain (subject) and pagination behavior. Might miss full return structure but sufficient for basic usage.
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?
Despite 0% schema coverage, description explains kind (denial/assignment/revocation) and since as a cursor. Limit is not described but has a sensible default. Overall adds significant meaning beyond raw 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?
The description clearly states it logs 'every denied tool call, and every access decision you made'. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like grant/revoke which manage access, while activity records them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explains how to use filters (kind, since) and pagination (polling while count==limit). However, lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses behavior: listing all records or a specific one. No mention of destructive actions, so it's appropriately transparent.
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?
Two sentences plus a list of topics; the first sentence is slightly figurative but still informative. Every part is necessary.
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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all needed information: modes of use, available topics, and the tool's nature (ADRs).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds complete meaning to the 'topic' parameter by listing all valid topics and explaining its use (empty for all, key for one).
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's about design decisions as an ADR corpus, distinct from siblings like 'guide' or 'about'. It specifies retrieving all topics without a topic or a specific one with a key.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells when to use: 'Call with no topic to list them all; pass a topic key for one.' While it doesn't state when not to use, the context is clear enough for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It details that body is opaque text, capped at 4000 chars, never interpreted; thread is a user-chosen conversation key; rate limiting per caller; and that this is pull-based with no push.
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 slightly lengthy but well-structured with front-loaded purpose and subsequent behavioral details. Each sentence adds value, though some redundancy could be trimmed.
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?
For a tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter behavior, rate limits, and interaction model. No information gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description fully explains both parameters: body is opaque text with a 4000-character cap, thread is a conversation key with instructions to leave blank for new or reuse for continuity.
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 'Leave a message for the owner' and distinguishes this pull-based tool from siblings like inbox() and my_messages(). It explains the communication pattern without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context for usage (sending a message) and explains the pull-based nature with references to inbox() and my_messages(). Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the purpose is well-defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: oldest-first ordering, cursor-based pagination, effect of passing nothing, and the need to poll for backlog. It also notes the absence of a push mechanism, making the tool's read-only nature clear.
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 well-structured with a summary sentence, followed by detailed but compact explanations for each aspect. Every sentence adds value, and the tier indicator is a useful extra touch. It is as concise as possible given the complexity.
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 no output schema, the description mentions key response fields (cursor, delivery) and references external documentation. It covers the core mechanics, but could provide a bit more structure for the response format. Still, it is largely complete for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description explains all three parameters: `since` as cursor (id or timestamp), `kind` with enumerated filter values, and `limit` with default 20. It also explains the interaction between cursor and limit for pagination.
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 defines the tool as a forward log of shipped/published items, oldest-first, with a subscribe-equivalent usage. It distinguishes from typical 'most recent N' snapshots and sibling tools like guide, contact, or projects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to call it: on session start and to catch up. Provides detailed polling instructions with cursor, including how to drain backlog. Mentions no push/subscribe mechanism and references additional documentation.
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:

[![boris-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/devenv/boris-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/devenv/boris-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![boris-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/devenv/boris-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/devenv/boris-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/devenv/boris-mcp'

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