Skip to main content
Glama
diarmind

kanpla-mcp

by diarmind
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation3/5

    The tools get_menu_for_date and get_today_menu have overlapping purposes, as both return menu items. The descriptions distinguish them by date specificity, but an agent could still be confused about which to use. list_modules is distinct.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Tool names follow a verb_noun pattern with snake_case (get_menu_for_date, get_today_menu, list_modules). The mix of 'get' and 'list' verbs is minor, and overall the naming is predictable.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 3 tools, the server feels under-scoped for a menu system. While it covers basic retrieval, additional tools for date ranges or module-specific menus would justify the count.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface lacks critical operations beyond retrieval, such as searching, filtering by module, or updating menu items. An agent cannot perform common tasks like getting menus for a week, which leaves significant gaps.

  • Average 3.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    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 status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

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

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states 'returns', indicating a read operation, but lacks details on side effects, authentication needs, or any other behavioral traits.

    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?

    A single sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core functionality.

    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 getter with 2 params and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks information about response format or edge cases (e.g., no menu for a date).

    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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on date format or moduleId usage.

    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 (returns), resource (Kanpla menu items), and specificity (specific date). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_today_menu', which likely serves a similar purpose.

    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_today_menu' or 'list_modules'. The agent must infer usage context.

    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 the description should disclose behavioral traits like data freshness, permissions, or side effects. It only states the basic function with no additional context about how the tool behaves (e.g., caching, rate limits, or availability). Minimal transparency.

    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 sentence with no fluff, but could be more structured (e.g., 'Returns today's Kanpla menu items. Optionally specify moduleId.'). Still efficient and front-loaded.

    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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It conveys the core function and scope. However, mentioning that moduleId override is optional would improve completeness.

    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 a clear description for moduleId. The tool description does not add new parameter information beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

    Clearly states the tool returns available Kanpla menu items for today. The verb 'returns' and resource 'menu items' are specific, and the scope 'for today' distinguishes it from get_menu_for_date (other dates) and list_modules (module listing).

    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?

    Implies usage for retrieving today's menu, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., 'Use this for today, get_menu_for_date for other dates'). The description relies on naming conventions rather than providing explicit context.

    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 provided, so description carries full burden. It states it lists available modules, suggesting a read-only operation. No side effects or constraints are mentioned, which is adequate for this simple list tool. Could provide more detail on authentication or empty results, but not required.

    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 that is succinct and informative. No unnecessary words, and the purpose is front-loaded.

    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 zero parameters, no output schema, and simple purpose, the description is complete. It tells what the tool does and why you'd use it, fitting the context perfectly.

    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?

    Input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter info because none exist. This is appropriate, and the description implicitly confirms no inputs needed.

    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 lists canteens/modules to find your moduleId. The verb 'lists' and resource 'canteens/modules' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_menu_for_date' by focusing on listing available modules rather than retrieving menus.

    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: use this to get your moduleId before using other tools that require it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but given the simplicity, this is sufficient.

    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

kanpla-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

kanpla-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/diarmind/kanpla-mcp'

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