Skip to main content
Glama
dspenard

MCP Chat

by dspenard
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one reads document content, the other edits by replacing text. There is zero overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tools follow a verb_noun pattern (read_doc_contents, edit_document), but the noun forms differ slightly ('doc_contents' vs 'document'). This minor inconsistency doesn't hinder readability.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for a document manipulation domain. While the narrow focus is defensible, the count is below the typical 3-15 range and borders on insufficient.

    Completeness3/5

    The server provides read and edit (replace) operations, but lacks create, delete, list, or other common document lifecycle operations. These gaps could be worked around but represent notable missing functionality.

  • Average 3.6/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 1 commit 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

  • 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?

    No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral details such as whether all occurrences are replaced, behavior when old_str is not found, return value, or any side effects. The schema mentions exact matching, but that is in the parameter description, not the tool description.

    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 sentence with no fluff, but it contains a minor typo ('documents') and could be slightly clearer about the target content. Overall, it is concise and front-loaded.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    For a simple mutation tool, the description covers the core operation but omits important context like return value, behavior on no match, and whether replacement is global. Given no output schema, including such details would make the description more complete.

    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 provides full descriptions for all three parameters (doc_id, old_str, new_str) with 100% coverage. The tool description only rephrases the replace operation without adding new meaning to the parameters, so it meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

    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 'edit' with resource 'document' and clarifies the mechanism ('replacing a string with a new string'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling read_doc_contents.

    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 the tool is for modifying document content by string replacement, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus reading, nor any exclusions or alternative tools. With only a read sibling, some guidance would improve clarity.

    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?

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait (returns a string), but it does not mention error handling (e.g., if doc_id is invalid), access permissions, or potential side effects (though reading implies none). This is minimal but not misleading.

    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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It states the action, object, and output in a compact form.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness4/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    For a simple tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description adequately states the operation and return type. It lacks edge-case details (e.g., errors or size limits), but these are not critical for basic usage, making it nearly complete.

    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 schema provides 100% coverage for 'doc_id' with a description ('Id of the document to read'). The tool description adds no additional semantic information about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

    Purpose5/5

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

    The description uses a specific verb ('Read') with a clear resource ('contents of a document') and specifies the return type ('string'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'edit_document', which implies modification rather than reading.

    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 usage is implied by the read vs. edit contrast with the sibling tool, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions. There is no guidance on prerequisites or conditions.

    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

claude_mcp_chat_cli MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

claude_mcp_chat_cli 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/dspenard/claude_mcp_chat_cli'

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