Ember MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct area: version comparison, package manager detection, API docs, best practices, version info, npm package info, and documentation search. No two tools overlap in purpose; descriptions clearly differentiate them.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_npm_versions, detect_package_manager) using snake_case and lowercase, with verbs like 'compare', 'detect', 'get', 'search'. No inconsistencies or mixed conventions.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools is well-scoped for an Ember development assistant. Each tool serves a clear informational purpose, covering documentation, best practices, versioning, and package management without being excessive or too sparse.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers key informational needs for Ember development: documentation retrieval, API references, best practices, version info, and npm package details. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for debugging or project scaffolding, but these are reasonable omissions for an information-focused server.
Average 3.9/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 1 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 5 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on February 20, 2026
- 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, leaving the description to carry the full burden. It mentions returns include parameters, return values, examples, and links, but does not disclose potential errors, authorization needs, or limitations.
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?
Single, focused sentence that gets to the point without extraneous words. Could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description adequately explains the return content (parameters, return values, examples, links). Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, 1 required), the description is sufficiently 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning, just echoing the schema's field descriptions (e.g., 'Ember class, module, or method' aligns with 'name' and 'type').
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?
Clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'API reference documentation' for Ember classes, modules, or methods. Distinguishes from siblings like 'search_ember_docs' which is for searching, not retrieving specific docs.
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 vs alternatives. Does not mention when not to use it or provide context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It says 'comprehensive information' but only lists a few examples without detailing the exact output structure, limitations, or whether it makes network calls.
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 no filler, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence and adding a use-case in the second.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but could specify the return format or confirm it returns a JSON object. The examples give some idea but not full completeness.
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% with a clear parameter description including examples. The description adds context on what the parameter retrieves but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.
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 tool name and description clearly state it retrieves comprehensive npm package info, including specific examples like version and dependencies. This distinguishes it from siblings such as compare_npm_versions or get_ember_version_info.
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 mentions it is 'essential for understanding package details before upgrading dependencies,' implying a use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like compare_npm_versions for version comparison.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must compensate. It states the tool shows update necessity and version details, but lacks specifics on output format, side effects, or any limitations. For a read-only tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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 consists of two concise sentences: the first states what the tool does, the second explains its value. No redundant or unnecessary information.
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?
With no output schema, the description hints at return values ('version details') but does not specify fields. Given the simple parameters and read-only nature, it is mostly complete but could benefit from mentioning exact output like 'returns latest version and boolean update flag'.
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?
Input schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., 'Name of the npm package'). The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema descriptions, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% 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: compare current and latest npm versions, indicate update need, and provide version details. The verb 'compare' and resource 'versions' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_npm_package_info' which likely don't perform direct comparison.
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 for dependency upgrades but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_npm_package_info'. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, lacks authentication or rate-limit details, and does not describe any side effects. The description only covers output content, missing key behavioral traits.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and includes a clear usage directive. No redundant or extraneous words; every sentence adds value.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose and output content. The lack of behavioral details is noted in transparency, but overall completeness is high given the tool's simplicity.
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% with a descriptive parameter 'topic' that includes examples. The description adds value by explaining what the response will contain (patterns, anti-patterns, etc.), helping the agent understand the parameter's impact beyond the schema.
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 retrieves Ember best practices and recommendations, listing specific content types (modern patterns, anti-patterns, performance tips). It distinguishes from sibling tools (npm, version, docs) by focusing on implementation advice, making its purpose unmistakable.
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 advises 'Always use this when providing implementation advice,' providing a strong usage context. However, it does not specify when to avoid this tool or recommend alternatives (e.g., search_ember_docs for general documentation), slightly limiting 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 burden of disclosure. It states the tool returns version information but does not specify output format, potential side effects, or limitations. The description is adequate but lacks detail beyond listing the types of information.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and key details. No extraneous text; every sentence adds value. Efficient for an AI agent to parse.
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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers core functionality. It mentions specific return items (current stable, what's new, migration guides). However, it omits details like error handling or format expectations, leaving minor gaps.
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% for the single optional parameter. The description essentially repeats the schema info ('specific version, optional, returns latest if not specified'), adding no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 retrieves Ember version info including stable version, what's new, and migration guides. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_npm_package_info by focusing specifically on Ember version details.
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 mentions it is 'useful for understanding version-specific features and deprecations,' providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_ember_docs or get_api_reference, which could also provide version-related info.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The description states it 'returns relevant documentation with links to official sources,' which indicates a read-only, safe operation. It does not disclose rate limits, pagination, or authentication needs. For a simple search tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource. Every word adds value; no filler. It is highly concise and structured for quick understanding.
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 simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool searches, what it returns (relevant docs with links), and its intended use. It could mention result ordering or filtering behavior, but the core information is present.
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%: all three parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 when coverage is high.
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 searches through Ember.js documentation including various types (API, guides, community content). The verb 'search' and resource 'Ember.js documentation' are specific. Among sibling tools like get_api_reference or get_best_practices, this is the only general search tool, so it distinguishes well.
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 advises using the tool for 'general queries about Ember concepts, features, or usage.' This provides clear context. It does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or list alternatives, but the sibling tools are specific (e.g., get_api_reference for detailed lookups), so the guidance is sufficient.
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?
No annotations provided, but description discloses that the tool examines lockfiles and package.json and returns commands. It implies a read-only operation without side effects. Does not mention specific behavioral traits like permissions or error cases, but the simple nature of detection makes this acceptable.
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, front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance. Every sentence is necessary and concise.
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?
For a simple detection tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: detection method, return value (commands), and usage recommendation. Complete for the given complexity.
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% with the single parameter workspacePath having a description. The description repeats the schema's detail about absolute path but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 tool detects package manager by examining lockfiles and package.json, naming the specific managers it can identify. It distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with npm versions and package info, so purpose is 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?
Explicitly instructs to use this tool before suggesting package installation or script execution commands, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, e.g., when package manager is already known.
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:

[![ember-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ember-tooling/ember-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ember-tooling/ember-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ember-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ember-tooling/ember-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ember-tooling/ember-mcp)

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/ember-tooling/ember-mcp'

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