Skip to main content
Glama
drjerryrelth

GHL Command

by drjerryrelth
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

75%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v3.50.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: one for setup, one for license, one for version check, and one for extracting Firebase script. No overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with descriptive verbs (auto_capture, get, request, setup), making them predictable.

    Tool Count4/5

    4 tools is slightly low, but they are well-scoped for initial setup and management of a larger set (212 tools). The count fits the bootstrapping purpose.

    Completeness3/5

    Covers key management actions (setup, license, version, feature utility) but lacks update/uninstall/debug tools. Minor gaps exist but core workflow is covered.

  • Average 4.5/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.

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

    • 1 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 6 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • 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.

  • This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.

  • 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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    No annotations provided. Description discloses the tool outputs a script, modifies clipboard, and is non-destructive. Assures no manual digging, but does not detail side effects or permissions. Still reasonably transparent.

    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?

    Description is about 4 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, step-by-step, no wasted words. Highly concise and structured.

    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?

    No output schema, but description explains the output (script) and what to do with it. Complexity low, no parameters. Complete guidance for the intended use case.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    No parameters. Rule states baseline 4 for zero parameters. Description does not need to add meaning beyond schema, which is trivial.

    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?

    Description clearly states the tool retrieves a browser-console script for auto-extracting 3 Firebase fields to enable Workflow Builder. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying integration with setup_ghl_mcp and enable_workflow_builder.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines4/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    Provides step-by-step instructions: run, copy script, paste in Chrome DevTools Console, press Enter, result in clipboard, then paste into another tool. Clearly indicates when to use (no manual IndexedDB digging). No explicit sibling differentiation but context is clear.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Lists returned fields (installed, latest, up-to-date, restart instruction). Implies read-only check with network access, no side effects disclosed beyond what stated.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    Two sentences, front-loaded purpose, no wasted words.

    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?

    Describes return values fully (no output schema), low complexity, no gaps given sibling context.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    No parameters, so description adds no param info but baseline is 4 thanks to full schema 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?

    Description clearly states 'Check the installed version... against the latest version' with specific verb and resource, and distinct from siblings.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines4/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    Explicitly says 'Use this to confirm an upgrade landed after restarting Claude.' No exclusions needed as siblings are unrelated.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool triggers an email and returns purchase info. It doesn't cover potential side effects, but for a non-destructive request tool, the disclosure is sufficient.

    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 three sentences, each adding unique information: purpose, usage scenario, and outcome. It is slightly verbose but all content is relevant 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?

    Given simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers all key aspects: purpose, trigger conditions, pricing, and expected result (purchase link). It lacks mention of prerequisites like authentication, but the tool is likely accessible.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the email parameter (send purchase link) and that name is optional, while the schema provides similar but more concise descriptions.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a GHL Command license.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and differs from siblings like `setup_ghl_mcp` which handle license validation, not acquisition.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines5/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description explicitly states when to use: 'if you installed from npm but don't have a license yet (or setup_ghl_mcp says your license is missing/invalid).' It also provides context—license costs, features, and what happens after submission.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior4/5

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

    No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It discloses validation, writing credentials to file, need for restart, and optional Firebase setup. Lacks details on overwriting existing config or error handling, but sufficient for a setup 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?

    Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no fluff. Every sentence adds essential information about what the tool does, what to do after, and optional variants.

    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?

    Complete for a setup tool: explains required vs optional fields, post-setup steps, and ties to other tools (enable_workflow_builder). No output schema needed; the description covers the expected workflow.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters5/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    All 9 parameters have schema descriptions, but the description adds value by explaining the 'one-paste' vs 'manual' Firebase paths and providing context for location IDs and API keys, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    Clearly states 'First-run setup for GHL Command MCP' with specific verbs 'validates' and 'writes'. Distinguishes from siblings by being a one-time setup, while siblings are for capturing Firebase, version info, or license requests.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines4/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    Explicitly says 'First-run setup' and 'Restart Claude after this completes'. Also notes optional Firebase fields and suggests using enable_workflow_builder later, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with siblings.

    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

ghl-command-feedback MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

ghl-command-feedback 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/drjerryrelth/ghl-command-feedback'

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