Skip to main content
Glama
ehsanghorbani190

TheGenie

by ehsanghorbani190
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    search_references and get_reference have clearly distinct purposes: one performs a query across indexed passages, the other resolves a specific citation ID to its stored record. There is no overlap or ambiguity between the two operations.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern—search_references and get_reference. The verbs are imperative and descriptive, and the nouns clearly indicate the target object.

    Tool Count4/5

    With only two tools, the set feels minimal, but it is appropriately scoped for a read-only reference retrieval service. The pair covers the essential search-and-retrieve workflow without unnecessary surface area, making it slightly under but still reasonable.

    Completeness5/5

    For the stated domain of local academic passage lookup, search_references and get_reference form a complete workflow: discover passages via search, then resolve exact text and provenance by ID. There are no obvious gaps, as this is a read-only index with no create/update/delete requirements.

  • Average 3.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 7 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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavior: results are only relevant passages, not proof of entailment, and source metadata may be missing so it must not be invented. 'Search' also implies a non-mutating read operation, though this is not spelled out.

    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 with no filler: the first states the operation and scope, the second delivers the critical verification warning. The structure is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

    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 description covers the main safety-critical behavior and the output schema presumably documents return values. It is still incomplete around sibling differentiation and parameter semantics, leaving an agent to guess about document_filter and when to use get_reference instead.

    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?

    Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds nothing about query, top_k, or document_filter. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but document_filter in particular has ambiguous accepted values and no compensating detail is provided.

    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 names a clear verb and resource: 'Search local indexed academic passages.' It is specific about scope, but it never references the sibling tool get_reference, so the agent must rely on the name contrast rather than an explicit statement of what this tool is not.

    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 passage 'Inspect the exact text before citing it' implies the tool returns candidates that require verification, which is useful. However, the description does not state when to prefer search_references over get_reference or when not to use it.

    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?

    With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly warns against inferring or inventing fields, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. It implies a read-only resolution operation, though it does not discuss error cases or access requirements.

    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 short sentences with no filler. The main behavior is stated first, and the critical constraint about not inventing fields is front-loaded in the second sentence.

    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 one-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It conveys exactness and provenance, though it could have explicitly referenced search_references as the way to discover citation IDs.

    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?

    Schema coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate, but it mostly restates the parameter name: 'citation ID' appears in both the description and the schema property. It does not explain the ID format, where it originates, or how to validate it.

    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 states a specific action—'Resolve one citation ID'—and a specific resource ('exact stored passage and known provenance'). It clearly differentiates from the sibling search_references by narrowing to lookup-by-ID rather than search.

    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?

    It implies the tool should be used when the caller already has a citation ID and needs the exact stored passage, but it does not explicitly mention search_references or state when to prefer one over the other. The guidance 'Do not infer or invent fields' is behavioral rather than usage-oriented.

    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

thegenie MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

thegenie 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/ehsanghorbani190/thegenie'

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