boardroom-agents

by edgemoorlf

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: listing vs getting details for meetings, listing motions vs getting their results, full-text search, and natural-language query. No overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, e.g., list_meetings, get_meeting, search_documents. Minor singular/plural variations are acceptable.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a board information retrieval system. Not too few to be thin, not too many to be overwhelming.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers all major query needs: listing meetings, getting meeting details, listing motions, retrieving motion results, document search, and a Q&A system. It is complete for its apparent read-only purpose.
Average 4/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 10 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
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

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that ballot-bearing documents are excluded, which is important behavioral info. However, it does not mention any limits, pagination, or performance caveats.
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, 40 words, no fluff. Essential information is 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 the output schema exists (context signal), the description sufficiently covers return values (snippets with references). One parameter is straightforward. The exclusion of ballot-bearing documents is noted, making the description mostly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the single 'query' parameter. It only says 'full-text search,' lacking details on query syntax (e.g., boolean operators, phrase matching, wildcards).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs full-text search over indexed meeting documents and returns matching snippets. The exclusion of ballot-bearing documents adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_meetings or get_meeting.
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 use for searching documents but provides no guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or scope (e.g., date range, folders).
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?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already inform the agent that this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the returned data types (agenda, minutes, attendees, documents), but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as error handling, required permissions, or rate limits. The description builds on annotations but does not exceed expectations.
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 of only 9 words, front-loaded with the verb and object. It contains no redundant information and every word contributes to the meaning. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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 low complexity (one parameter, simple return), the presence of an output schema (not shown but noted), and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. It states what data is returned. However, it omits any mention of error handling (e.g., what if the meeting ID does not exist) or authorization, leaving minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for its sole parameter 'id'. The description does not explain that this is a meeting identifier or provide any context about the parameter's format, constraints, or how to obtain it. With such low schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.
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 one meeting's agenda, minutes, attendees, and attached documents.' It specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'one meeting', and enumerates the returned data. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_meetings (which returns a list, not details) and other tools focusing on motions or documents.
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 a user wants detailed information about a specific meeting, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_meetings to find the ID, search_documents for documents across meetings). No 'when-not-to-use' is mentioned.
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?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that it lists specific fields and optionally filters. However, it omits behavioral details such as pagination, ordering, or whether it returns all motions or only those the user can see. The description does not contradict annotations.
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 return fields and filtering capability. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy.
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 is simple with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, so the description could be minimal. However, it doesn't clarify the scope (e.g., 'all motions in the workspace', 'motions for a meeting only'). This vagueness reduces completeness given the sibling tools 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains that meetingId filters motions by meeting, which is functional but minimal. It doesn't specify what the integer represents (e.g., meeting ID from list_meetings) or that it's optional. The added value is marginal.
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 verb 'list' and resource 'motions', and enumerates the returned fields (id, title, kind, ballot_mode, status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_meetings (different resource) and get_meeting (single meeting), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 hints at when to use the optional meetingId filter ('Optionally filter by meeting') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_motion_results or search_documents. It lacks exclusions or prerequisite context.
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?
The annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds critical behavioral details: recorded motions return per-voter data, while anonymous reactions return only totals. This goes beyond the annotations and provides key 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 concise with two sentences (first line + second line) that front-load the main purpose. Every part is useful, and there is no redundancy or fluff.
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?
Given that an output schema exists (which handles return value specifics), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the two possible result types, which is the key behavioral nuance. The annotations already cover safety aspects. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter (motionId) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explicitly describe motionId, though the tool name and context imply it is the motion ID. Since the description does not add significant meaning beyond what is obvious, it only marginally compensates for the low 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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get results for a motion.' It distinguishes between recorded motions (which return per-voter names/choices) and anonymous motions/elections (only totals/turnout), which differentiates it from siblings like list_motions or get_meeting.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool, explaining how results differ based on motion type. It implicitly advises against expecting individual votes for anonymous motions, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true), the description adds significant behavioral context: the answer is drafted by a research agent, reviewed against an answer policy, and includes governance verdict and policy rules. This fully informs the agent about the tool's internal process.
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, no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds valuable process details. Efficiently 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 the tool's complexity (natural-language Q&A), the description covers purpose, process, and output. However, it lacks guidance on question formulation or potential limitations (e.g., response time due to agent review), which would enhance completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not elaborate on the 'question' parameter (e.g., format, scope, examples). The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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: asking natural-language questions about the board's history. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., list_meetings, search_documents) by focusing on open-ended Q&A rather than structured retrieval.
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 implies when to use (for natural-language queries about board history) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. The sibling context helps, but explicit guidance would improve this dimension.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to reiterate safety. It adds value by specifying the returned fields (id, date, title). However, there is no mention of ordering, pagination, or limits, though the tool has no parameters, making this adequate.
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 is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is necessary, and no superfluous information is included.
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?
Given no parameters and an existing output schema (indicated by context), the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what it returns. It is complete for a simple list-all tool with good annotations.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info, and it correctly lists what is returned.
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 verb 'list' and resource 'board meetings', and specifies the returned fields (id, date, title). This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like get_meeting (which likely returns full details) and list_motions (different resource type).
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 a simple listing tool but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. For example, it does not indicate that for a specific meeting's full details, one should use get_meeting. Some guidance on use cases and exclusions would improve clarity.
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:

[![boardroom-agents MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/edgemoorlf/boardroom-agents/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/edgemoorlf/boardroom-agents)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![boardroom-agents MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/edgemoorlf/boardroom-agents/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/edgemoorlf/boardroom-agents)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/edgemoorlf/boardroom-agents'

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