Skip to main content
Glama

Server Quality Checklist

75%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.
  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one fetches pattern data, the other provides URLs. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow the same verb-noun convention with snake_case (get_recent_patterns, get_website_url). The pattern is consistent and predictable.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a general-purpose API. However, the scope appears intentionally narrow, so the count is borderline but not extreme.

    Completeness3/5

    The tools cover basic access to recent patterns and URLs, but lack searching, filtering, or detailed retrieval. There are minor gaps that an agent might work around but not critical for the stated purpose.

  • Average 3.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 3 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.

  • This server has been verified by its author.

  • 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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'fetch,' implying a read operation, but does not mention pagination behavior, response format, rate limits, authentication, or what 'most recent' entails. This is a significant gap for safe usage.

    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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with zero unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

    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 tool has one optional parameter and no output schema, and the description covers the core purpose. However, it omits details about the return value (list format, contents) and pagination behavior, making it only minimally complete for the context.

    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 already provides 100% coverage for the single 'page' parameter with a clear description and default value. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies per the rubric.

    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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource: 'most recent public Perler bead and pixel art patterns from the PindouAI gallery.' This fully distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_website_url', which serves a different purpose.

    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 when to use this tool (when you need recent patterns) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no guidance on selecting between this and 'get_website_url', leaving usage context only implied.

    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 behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' indicates a read-only operation, which is helpful, but the description does not disclose return format, error behavior, or whether the data is static or dynamic. With zero parameters, the tool is straightforward, but more detail would improve 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 a single, concise sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and front-loaded, providing the key information efficiently.

    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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It names the resource and gives examples, but it could be more explicit about the return structure (e.g., whether it returns a single URL or a collection). Since the output schema is absent, a tiny bit more detail on the response format would push this to a 5.

    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 is empty (no parameters), and the description does not discuss parameters because there are none. Per the calibration baseline, zero parameters receive a 4. The description's examples add context but do not need to explain parameter semantics that do not 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 retrieves official URLs for PindouAI tools, with specific examples (pattern generator, gallery). The verb 'Get' and resource 'official URLs' are precise, and the tool is clearly distinct from its sibling get_recent_patterns, which focuses on patterns rather than URLs.

    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 when one needs website URLs for PindouAI tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. Since the tool is simple and the sibling tool serves a different purpose, the implied context is adequate but not explicit.

    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

pindou-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

pindou-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/double2dev/pindou-mcp'

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