agentforge

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap. check_agent_health focuses on availability, get_agent provides detailed metadata, get_platform_stats offers aggregate platform data, invoke_agent executes agent calls, and list_agents shows the marketplace catalog. An agent can easily distinguish between these operations.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case. The verbs (check, get, get, invoke, list) are appropriate and predictable, making the set easy to navigate and understand at a glance.
Tool Count5/5
Five tools is well-scoped for managing an AI agent platform. It covers essential operations like listing, retrieving details, invoking agents, checking health, and viewing platform stats without being overwhelming or insufficient for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers core workflows: discovery (list_agents, get_agent), execution (invoke_agent), monitoring (check_agent_health, get_platform_stats). A minor gap is the lack of update/delete tools for managing agents, but this might be intentional if the platform is read-only for users.
Average 3.3/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed 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 passing
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks health/availability status, which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose what 'health' entails (e.g., uptime, performance metrics), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the response format looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every part of the sentence contributing to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (checking health status), no annotations, no output schema, and 1 parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'health' means, what the return values indicate (e.g., status codes, metrics), or how to interpret results, leaving significant gaps for the agent to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'agent_id' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as checking health/availability status of a specific AI agent, which includes a specific verb ('check') and resource ('AI agent'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_agent' or 'list_agents' that might also provide agent information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_agent' or 'list_agents'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage, leaving the agent to infer when this health check is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It could be slightly more structured by separating key details, but it avoids redundancy and wastes no 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?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers what information is retrieved but lacks details on behavioral aspects and usage context. With no output schema, it should ideally hint at return values, but the simplicity keeps it from being severely incomplete.
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 schema already documents the single parameter 'agent_id' with its type and description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid IDs beyond 'gpt-4o-mini' or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific AI agent'), including what information is retrieved (input/output schema, pricing, usage examples). It distinguishes from 'list_agents' by focusing on a single agent, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'check_agent_health' or 'invoke_agent'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_agents' (for multiple agents) or 'check_agent_health' (for status checks). It implies usage for detailed agent info but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves aggregate statistics, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get aggregate statistics about the AgentForge platform') and adds specific examples ('total agents, active users, requests served, etc.') without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. For a read-only stats tool, this is minimally viable but could be more complete by addressing when to use it or behavioral traits.
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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps in schema documentation.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('aggregate statistics about the AgentForge platform'), specifying what metrics are included (total agents, active users, requests served). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_agent_health' or 'list_agents', which might also provide statistical or agent-related data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_agent_health' or 'list_agents'. It implies usage for platform-wide statistics but doesn't specify contexts, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.
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 full burden. It discloses the return content (agent IDs, names, descriptions, pricing, categories), which adds value beyond the input schema. However, it omits behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving gaps for a listing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all AI agents') and immediately specifies the return data. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete: it states purpose, return values, and hints at filtering. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., list structure) and behavioral context (e.g., ordering, errors), which could enhance completeness for a listing operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('category' and 'limit') with descriptions and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as example categories or default behavior details, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 verb ('List') and resource ('all AI agents available on the AgentForge marketplace'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_agent' (singular) and 'check_agent_health' (health status) by focusing on comprehensive listing with details.
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 browsing agents with filters, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_agent' for specific agent details or 'invoke_agent' for execution. It mentions optional filtering by category, which hints at context, but lacks clear when/when-not rules or sibling comparisons.
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 discloses key behavioral traits: it requires an API key, supports streaming responses, and returns the assistant reply. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication specifics beyond the environment variable, or what happens if the agent_id is invalid.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, prerequisites, and key features (streaming, return value). Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of invoking AI agents, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose, prerequisites, and response behavior, but lacks details on output format, error cases, or advanced usage scenarios, which would be helpful for an agent to use it 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (agent_id, messages, stream). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the format of agent_id values or how messages should be structured. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 specific action ('invoke any AI agent') and resource ('AgentForge marketplace'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_agent_health, get_agent, get_platform_stats, and list_agents which perform different operations. It explicitly mentions what the tool does beyond just the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (to invoke agents on the marketplace) and mentions prerequisites (requires AGENTFORGE_API_KEY environment variable). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, such as using get_agent for retrieving agent details instead.
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:

[![agentforge MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/doggychip/agentforge/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/doggychip/agentforge)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![agentforge MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/doggychip/agentforge/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/doggychip/agentforge)

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/doggychip/agentforge'

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