Karma MCP Server
Server Quality Checklist
This repository includes a README.md file.
This repository includes a LICENSE file.
Latest release: v0.9.1
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 provides 14 tools. View schema
No known security issues or vulnerabilities reported.
Are you the author?
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool creates a silence and returns a result with a silence ID, but lacks critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, if the silence is reversible (e.g., via 'delete_silence'), what happens if the alert doesn't exist, rate limits, or side effects on alerting systems.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet-like formatting. It's appropriately sized for a 5-parameter tool, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels are slightly redundant with schema/output schema. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a fair job explaining parameters and mentions a return value. However, as a mutation tool (create) with siblings like 'delete_silence', it lacks context on permissions, idempotency, error conditions, and integration with the alerting workflow. The existence of an output schema helps but doesn't fully compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides semantic meaning for all 5 parameters (cluster, alertname, duration, comment, matchers) with examples and notes optionality, which adds value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., how matchers combine with alertname) or constraints (e.g., valid duration formats beyond examples).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new silence') and the target ('for specific alerts'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'delete_silence' beyond the obvious create/delete distinction, nor does it mention other alert management siblings like 'list_silences'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing alert details first), when silencing is appropriate versus other alert actions, or how it relates to siblings like 'delete_silence' or 'list_silences'.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes/expires a silence, implying a destructive mutation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or error handling. The phrase 'expire' hints at a time-based aspect, but this isn't elaborated, leaving behavioral traits unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core action. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured clearly, but the 'Returns' line ('Deletion result') is vague and could be more informative. Overall, it avoids unnecessary verbosity, though minor improvements in specificity could enhance efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a destructive operation with 2 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks usage guidelines, detailed behavioral context, and specifics on the return value despite the output schema. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but other gaps remain significant.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists both parameters ('silence_id' and 'cluster') and briefly explains their roles ('ID of the silence to delete' and 'Cluster where the silence exists'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide format details, examples, or constraints, leaving some semantic gaps for a tool with two required parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete/expire') and resource ('an existing silence'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_silence' and 'list_silences' by focusing on removal rather than creation or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, such as whether it differs from other deletion-like operations if they existed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing silence ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_silence' or 'list_silences'. Without such context, an agent might struggle to determine the appropriate scenario for invoking this tool.
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 full burden. It states the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' entails. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description lacks context on data freshness or access permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args section is structured but could be more integrated. No wasted sentences, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given 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) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It covers the basic purpose but misses usage guidelines and behavioral context, which are important for a tool in a crowded sibling set. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but overall completeness is minimal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal semantics by specifying 'alert_name' as the 'Name of the alert to get details for', which clarifies the parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't explain format constraints, examples, or how to obtain valid alert names, leaving gaps given the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does 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 alert'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_alerts' or 'get_alerts_summary' by focusing on a single alert's details. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_alert_details_multi_cluster', which appears to be a very similar sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. With many sibling tools for alert management (e.g., 'list_alerts', 'get_alerts_by_state', 'search_alerts_by_container'), there's no indication of prerequisites, context, or distinctions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists 'active silences' and returns a 'formatted list', but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Each sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information. It could be slightly improved by integrating the sections more seamlessly, but overall it's efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low schema description coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter usage but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines relative to siblings. For a tool with one parameter and an output schema, it meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds some semantic context for the 'cluster' parameter, explaining it as 'Optional cluster name to filter silences' with an example ('teddy-prod'), which is helpful since schema description coverage is 0%. However, it does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, as it doesn't detail format constraints or validation rules beyond the example.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all active silences across clusters or for a specific cluster.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('active silences'), and scope ('across clusters or for a specific cluster'), which is clear and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_suppressed_alerts' or 'list_alerts', which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It mentions the optional 'cluster' parameter for filtering, but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_suppressed_alerts' or 'list_alerts_by_cluster'. No explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from 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 are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'Get alerts filtered by state' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or what the output contains. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the purpose and includes essential details without redundancy, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given one parameter with 0% schema coverage and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics partially, but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. With output schema handling return values, the description doesn't need to explain outputs, but overall completeness is limited.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the parameter 'state' and its values (active, suppressed, or all), adding meaning beyond the schema's generic string type. However, it doesn't explain syntax, format, or constraints, leaving the parameter partially documented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'alerts', with specific filtering by 'state (active, suppressed, or all)'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_alerts' or 'get_alert_details' by focusing on state-based filtering, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when filtering alerts by state, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'list_active_alerts' or 'list_suppressed_alerts'. It lacks prerequisites, exclusions, or named alternatives.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists alerts filtered by cluster, but doesn't describe what 'alerts' entail, whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, any rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the output looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first ('List alerts filtered by specific cluster'), followed by parameter details in a structured 'Args:' section. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying the tool's function and parameter usage, with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values) and a simple input schema with one parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, it lacks context on behavioral traits, usage distinctions, and broader system integration. The description covers the basics but doesn't provide enough guidance for optimal tool selection in a crowded namespace.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage, with only a title 'Cluster Name' and type 'string'. The description provides a clear explanation: 'Name of the cluster to filter by (e.g., 'teddy-prod', 'edge-prod')', including purpose and examples, which compensates well for the low schema coverage. However, it doesn't detail constraints like allowed values or format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List alerts filtered by specific cluster.' It includes a specific verb ('List') and resource ('alerts'), and specifies the filtering mechanism ('by specific cluster'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list_alerts' or 'list_active_alerts' beyond the cluster filtering, which is implied but not directly contrasted.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. With siblings like 'list_alerts', 'list_active_alerts', 'get_alerts_by_state', and 'search_alerts_by_container', there's no indication of when cluster filtering is preferred over other filtering methods or what distinguishes this tool from similar ones. Usage is implied by the parameter but not explicitly stated.
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 action but doesn't explain what 'check connection' entails—e.g., whether it performs a ping, validates authentication, returns status details, or has side effects like logging. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given 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 annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output, or integration with siblings. The output schema existence reduces the need to explain return values, but more context on usage would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't introduce any confusion, earning a baseline score of 4 for this context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Check connection') and target ('to Karma server'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'list_clusters' or 'get_alerts_summary' which might also involve server connectivity, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or context for checking server connection relative to other tools that might implicitly test connectivity, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
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 full burden but only states what the tool returns (active alerts). It lacks behavioral details such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it's read-only/destructive. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it's insufficient 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a parenthetical for clarification, making it appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists (which handles return values), and the description states the filtering scope, it's minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, more context on differentiation and behavioral traits would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('active alerts'), with the parenthetical '(non-suppressed)' providing useful clarification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_alerts' or 'get_alerts_by_state', which would require more specific comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for 'only active (non-suppressed) alerts' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_alerts' or 'get_alerts_by_state'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context are mentioned.
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 action but doesn't cover aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'active' means operationally. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand tool behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is 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 any wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., what 'active' entails, response format hints) and differentiation from siblings, which could help an agent use it correctly in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a high baseline score for not adding unnecessary information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does 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 active alerts in Karma'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'list_active_alerts' or 'get_alerts_by_state', which appear to serve similar functions, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_active_alerts' or 'get_alerts_by_state'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving usage unclear.
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 full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how results are formatted (though output schema exists), or if there are rate limits. The description doesn't contradict annotations (since none exist), but it fails to compensate for their absence.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is 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 any fluff. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter list operation and is front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with zero parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, given the lack of annotations and the presence of sibling tools in the same domain (Karma/alert management), it could better address context like how clusters relate to alerts or what 'available' means in this context. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing nonexistent parameters, and with no parameters to document, it meets the baseline expectation for parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does 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 available Kubernetes clusters in Karma'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_karma' or 'list_alerts_by_cluster', but the resource specificity (clusters vs. alerts/silences) provides implicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'check_karma' (which might provide cluster health status) or 'list_alerts_by_cluster' (which focuses on alerts rather than clusters).
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 full burden. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'suppressed' entails (e.g., silenced vs. resolved). This leaves gaps for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'List only suppressed alerts' is front-loaded and directly states the action and scope. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 0 parameters, an output schema exists, and no annotations, the description is minimal but adequate. It specifies the resource type, but for a tool in a set with many alert-related siblings, more context on suppression meaning or use cases would enhance completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does 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 documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is fine, but it implies filtering by suppression status, aligning with the tool's purpose. Baseline is 4 for zero params.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List only suppressed alerts' specifies the verb (list) and resource (suppressed alerts). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_active_alerts' and 'list_alerts' by focusing on suppressed ones, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list_alerts' and 'list_active_alerts', the description doesn't explain if this is for filtered views, troubleshooting, or specific workflows, leaving usage unclear.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching 'across multiple clusters' but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what constitutes an 'alert' in this context. The description is too minimal for a mutation-free but potentially complex search operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the tool's function, and the Args section efficiently documents parameters without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., search scope, performance). For a search tool with sibling alternatives, more guidance would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains both parameters: 'container_name' as the name to search for and 'cluster_filter' as an optional filter with examples ('teddy-prod', 'edge-prod') and default behavior (empty searches all clusters). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., string patterns).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for alerts by container name across multiple clusters.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('alerts'), and key constraint ('by container name across multiple clusters'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_alerts_by_cluster' or 'get_alerts_by_state', which would be needed for a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. With many sibling tools for alert management (e.g., 'list_alerts_by_cluster', 'get_alert_details'), there's no indication of when this container-based search is preferred over other filtering methods or what prerequisites might exist.
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 full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states it 'searches' and gets 'detailed information', but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' entails beyond what the output schema might cover. This leaves significant gaps for a tool interacting with alerts.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The 'Args' section is structured but could be more integrated; overall, it's front-loaded and wastes no words, though minor improvements in flow are possible.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which should cover return values), the description addresses the core purpose and parameters. However, with no annotations and only basic parameter info, it lacks context on behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or error conditions, making it minimally adequate but incomplete for informed use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an 'Args' section that explains both parameters: 'alert_name' as the name to search for with an example, and 'cluster_filter' as an optional filter with behavior when empty. With schema description coverage at 0%, this adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover all possible nuances like format constraints or interaction effects.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific alert across multiple clusters'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from single-cluster tools like 'get_alert_details' by specifying 'across multiple clusters', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'list_alerts_by_cluster' or 'search_alerts_by_container'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by specifying it retrieves details for a specific alert across clusters, suggesting it's for detailed inspection rather than listing. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_alert_details' (single-cluster) or 'list_alerts_by_cluster' (listing vs. details), and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool's purpose but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or response format. For a read operation with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes to understanding the purpose, earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description's job is simplified. It covers the basic purpose adequately but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, data scope) that would be helpful for an agent. With no annotations, it doesn't fully compensate for missing operational details, making it minimally viable but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does 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 documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter details, focusing solely on the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get a summary') and the resource ('alerts'), specifying grouping by 'severity and state'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_alerts' or 'get_alert_details' by focusing on aggregated data rather than listing or detailing individual alerts. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., 'get_alerts_by_state'), keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for obtaining aggregated alert statistics rather than raw lists or details, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_alerts' or 'get_alerts_by_state'. No guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts is provided, leaving usage somewhat inferred rather than clearly defined.
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:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
How to claim the server?
If you are the author of the server, you simply need to authenticate using GitHub.
However, if the MCP server belongs to an organization, you need to first add glama.json to the root of your repository.
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
"maintainers": [
"your-github-username"
]
}Then, authenticate using GitHub.
Browse examples.
How to make a release?
A "release" on Glama is not the same as a GitHub release. To create a Glama release:
- Claim the server if you haven't already.
- Go to the Dockerfile admin page, configure the build spec, and click Deploy.
- Once the build test succeeds, click Make Release, enter a version, and publish.
This process allows Glama to run security checks on your server and enables users to deploy it.
How to add a LICENSE?
Please follow the instructions in the GitHub documentation.
Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear on the server after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
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.
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/driosalido/mcp-karma'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server