Skip to main content
Glama
eliottreich

TaskBounty Check

by eliottreich
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.6

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: scanning produces findings, explaining interprets them, and generating a fix plan suggests steps. There is no overlap in functionality.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (explain_finding, generate_fix_plan, scan_repo), making them predictable and easy to understand.

    Tool Count5/5

    With only 3 tools, the set is tightly scoped to a specific workflow (scan, explain, fix). This is appropriate for a focused server, avoiding unnecessary complexity.

    Completeness4/5

    The tools cover the main workflow from scanning to understanding to suggesting fixes. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to list all possible rules without scanning, but the workflow remains functional.

  • Average 3.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 16 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • 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 states 'No network, no file access' and 'explain' implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness or discuss authorization needs. No contradiction with 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 extremely concise, consisting of three short statements that are front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy.

    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 parameter, the description covers purpose, input format, and constraints. It lacks details about output format or error handling, but given the simplicity and expectation of plain language, it is fairly 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?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds that the parameter can accept a 'category' in addition to rule ids, providing extra context, but this is a minor addition.

    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 uses a specific verb 'explain' and resource 'finding', and provides examples of rule ids. It clearly states what the tool does, but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like generate_fix_plan or scan_repo.

    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 understanding findings and mentions constraints ('No network, no file access'), but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives 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?

    Despite no annotations, the description explicitly states the tool does not modify files, which is a key behavioral trait. It also clarifies that the user applies changes manually, adding transparency beyond basic functionality.

    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 extremely concise: two sentences that cover purpose, input, and behavior. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the key action.

    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 no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, and non-destructive behavior. It could be more complete by describing the format of the fix plan output, but overall it provides sufficient 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?

    Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond the schemas for 'rule' and 'path'. It reiterates what the schema already provides without adding new semantic details or constraints.

    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 returns a step-by-step fix plan as text for a given rule. It distinguishes itself from siblings 'explain_finding' and 'scan_repo' by focusing on generating a fix plan rather than explaining or scanning.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'explain_finding' or 'scan_repo'. The description only states the inputs without clarifying in which scenarios this tool is appropriate.

    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 full burden. It discloses important behaviors: no network requests, no uploads, and reads only workflow files. This adds transparency beyond the schema, though it doesn't mention permissions or side effects.

    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 three sentences: purpose, behavioral constraints, and output format. It is front-loaded and each sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

    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 simple tool (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, behavior, and output adequately. However, it could mention error handling or path validation for completeness.

    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% for the single parameter 'path'. The description adds value by mentioning the default (current directory), which is not in the schema. This helps the agent understand the parameter's behavior.

    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 scans a local repository for GitHub Actions and CI maintenance hygiene, using action verbs and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from siblings (explain_finding, generate_fix_plan) which are post-scan actions.

    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 usage for local repository scanning (e.g., 'LOCAL repository', 'reads only workflow files on disk'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, though siblings are different enough to infer.

    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

taskbounty-check MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

taskbounty-check 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/eliottreich/taskbounty-check'

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