Skip to main content
Glama
edgeedgehq

CoverageUnlocked MCP Server

by edgeedgehq
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.3

  • Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap. Agents will always select the correct tool for the single purpose of analyzing insurance denials.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The single tool name 'analyze_denial' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, which is consistent by default. There are no other tool names to create inconsistency.

    Tool Count3/5

    A single tool is minimal, but for a highly specialized server focused solely on denial analysis, it is borderline appropriate. The server could benefit from additional tools for related tasks like retrieving denial history or tracking appeals.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool provides comprehensive coverage for its stated purpose: analyzing denials, calculating win probability, identifying top denial reasons, and offering appeal guidance. Minor gaps might include the inability to save or retrieve previous analyses, but the core analysis capability is complete.

  • Average 3.9/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues 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 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.

  • 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

  • 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 the tool's analytical nature and broad coverage, but omits behavioral details such as API key requirements, rate limits (free tier vs Pro), or authentication needs. It adequately conveys non-destructive intent but falls short on full 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 three sentences, each valuable. It front-loads the main action and includes relevant scope details without unnecessary words or tangents. Perfectly concise for the information provided.

    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?

    With 5 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description could be more complete. It explains the tool's purpose and coverage but does not describe the return format (e.g., win probability structure) or clarify how api_key relates to access tiers. Missing some context needed for full understanding.

    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% with detailed descriptions for all 5 parameters. The tool description adds high-level context but does not enhance parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already carries the semantic load.

    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: 'Analyze an insurance denial and get win probability, top denial reasons, and appeal guidance.' It specifies the verb, resource, and outputs, and adds scope details (489+ CPT codes, 9 categories, 20 years data) making it specific and unambiguous.

    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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when someone asks about insurance denials, claim denials, appeal chances, or how to fight a denied claim.' It provides good context for invocation, though it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives due to no sibling tools.

    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

coverageunlocked-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

coverageunlocked-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/edgeedgehq/coverageunlocked-mcp'

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