multi-model-mcp

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: ask_many for parallel queries, ask_model for single query, list_models for enumeration, critique_answer for critiquing drafts, pick_best_answer for ranking candidates, and reason_together for multi-step reasoning. No two tools overlap in function.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: ask_many, ask_model, critique_answer, list_models, pick_best_answer, reason_together. The verbs are descriptive and the naming style is uniform.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the surface is well-scoped for a multi-model interaction server. Each tool adds clear value without redundancy or bloat, covering essential operations for querying, critiquing, ranking, and reasoning.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers all core workflows: single/parallel queries, critique, ranking, and multi-step reasoning. A minor gap might be a tool for managing model configurations or conversation history, but the set is largely complete for the stated 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
- 1 commit 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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behaviors. It mentions failure isolation, which is good, but omits side effects, authentication, rate limits, or response structure. Decent but incomplete.
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 that front-load the primary action and key feature (parallel execution, failure isolation). No unnecessary words.
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?
Covers core functionality but lacks guidance on usage context, error scenarios, or comparison to siblings. Output schema exists, so return values are covered. Still, given no annotations and moderate complexity, it could be more 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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter 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 sends the same prompt to multiple models in parallel and returns one response per model. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ask_model' by emphasizing the multi-model parallel nature.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ask_model', 'reason_together', or 'pick_best_answer'. The description implies usage for parallel prompting but lacks when-not-to-use or comparisons.
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?
The description mentions only the action of listing, but with no annotations, the burden falls on the description. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, non-destructive, or has any side effects. However, the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no mutations) makes this minimally 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, complete sentence that fully explains the tool's functionality without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and 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?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is mostly complete. However, it could provide more context about why listing model aliases is useful, especially in relation to sibling tools like ask_model. As it stands, it is adequate but not rich.
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?
There are no parameters, so the schema is fully covered (100%). The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.
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 that the tool lists all model aliases from a specific configuration file. The verb 'list' and resource 'model aliases' are precise, and the tool name'list_models' aligns with this purpose. Sibling tools have different actions (ask, critique, pick, reason), making this tool distinct.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Although sibling tools are conceptually different, the description does not offer any context for decision-making, such as prerequisites or typical use cases.
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 fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns per-model critiques, which is helpful, but does not mention potential costs, rate limits, or any side effects. It lacks depth but is not misleading.
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-loading the action and then the value. Every word earns its place; no fluff. It is highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given there is an output schema, return values are covered. However, the tool has 5 parameters and 3 required ones, and the description does not mention anything about token usage, model availability, or possible constraints. It is adequate but could provide more context for a critique tool.
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 description does not need to add much. It does not provide additional semantics beyond the parameter descriptions in the schema, such as clarifying the role of 'model_aliases' or 'temperature.' Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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: 'critique a draft answer to a question' and 'Returns per-model critiques with identified weaknesses and suggested improvements.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ask_model' (which generates answers) and 'pick_best_answer' (which selects).
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 'Useful for improving a draft before finalizing it,' which provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, though sibling names imply different purposes.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. Describes the basic operation but omits potential side effects, error handling, or rate limits. For a straightforward query tool, this is minimally 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?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. First sentence defines function, second adds usage guidance.
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 5 well-documented parameters and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a simple tool. Does not explain return format, but output schema covers that.
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 detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high 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 verb 'send a prompt' and the resource 'single configured model', and explicitly distinguishes from multi-model siblings like ask_many.
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 advises 'use this for a direct query to a specific provider/model', implying when to use it. Though it does not list alternatives explicitly, the context from sibling names provides differentiation.
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 is the sole source of behavioral info. It discloses the core action (ask a judge model to rank) and return values, but does not mention potential costs, latency, or any prerequisites. 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 a single sentence of 20 words that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and outputs. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with the core 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?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the main purpose and key behavior. Missing details about the judge model selection or ranking logic, but acceptable for a tool with a rich schema.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context about returning winner, ranking, and explanation, but does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond the schema. No additional semantics provided.
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 function: given multiple candidate answers, it uses a judge model to rank them and identify the best one. This directly reflects the tool's name and purpose, and implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like ask_many and critique_answer.
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 when one has multiple candidate answers to compare, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternative tools. It provides clear context but lacks exclusions.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It thoroughly discloses the workflow steps for each strategy, the number of rounds, the roles of models and critic, and that the output is a synthesis. This equips the agent with key behavioral insights.
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 and front-loaded with the essential purpose, followed by a clean list of strategies. No redundant sentences; every part adds value.
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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, multi-step workflow) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the workflow, strategies, and return values (trace, individual responses, synthesized answer), providing sufficient context for correct invocation.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about strategy behavior but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
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 it is a 'multi-step reasoning workflow across multiple models' and lists three specific strategies (independent_then_critique, debate, red_team), which distinguishes it from simpler sibling tools like ask_model or ask_many.
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 explains each strategy and their behavior (e.g., 'models answer independently, then a critic synthesizes') and notes that the final answer is 'synthesis, not ground truth'. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like ask_many or pick_best_answer.
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:

[![multi-model-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fernando-freitas-alves/multi-model-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fernando-freitas-alves/multi-model-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![multi-model-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fernando-freitas-alves/multi-model-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fernando-freitas-alves/multi-model-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/fernando-freitas-alves/multi-model-mcp'

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