Skip to main content
Glama
funwarioisii

Cosense MCP Server

by funwarioisii
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: 'get_page' retrieves a specific page with its content and links, while 'list_pages' enumerates all known pages. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them, as one is for detailed retrieval and the other for listing.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: 'get_page' and 'list_pages'. The naming is predictable and readable, with no deviations or mixed conventions, making it easy to understand their functions at a glance.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels too thin for its apparent domain of managing pages in a project. It lacks essential operations like creating, updating, or deleting pages, which are typical for such a domain, making it under-scoped and limiting for agents.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for page management. While it provides read operations (get and list), it misses critical CRUD functions such as create, update, and delete, as well as other potential operations like searching or managing links. This will likely cause agent failures in handling full page lifecycles.

  • Average 3.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 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

  • 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 of behavioral disclosure. While it describes what a page is and mentions links between pages, it doesn't address key behavioral aspects: what happens if the page doesn't exist, whether authentication is required, what format the response takes, or any rate limits. The description focuses on conceptual information rather than operational behavior.

    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?

    The description is reasonably concise with 5 sentences that each add value. It starts with the core purpose, then explains what a page is, describes the linking system, provides an example, and mentions link rendering. While efficient, the conceptual explanations could be more tightly integrated with the tool's practical usage.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the domain concept of pages and links but doesn't address critical operational aspects: what the tool returns, error conditions, authentication requirements, or how to handle missing pages. The conceptual background is useful but doesn't substitute for practical usage information.

    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 single 'pageTitle' parameter. The description adds some context about how page titles work in the system (bracket notation, link formatting), but doesn't provide additional parameter-specific guidance beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

    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's purpose: 'Get a page from my-project project on cosen.se' - a specific verb (get) and resource (page). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'list_pages' by focusing on retrieving a single page rather than listing multiple pages. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling tool in the description text itself.

    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?

    The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the existence of 'list_pages' as a sibling tool suggests this is for retrieving individual pages rather than listing them, the description doesn't mention this distinction or provide any context about prerequisites, error conditions, or when not to use this tool.

    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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'List known cosense pages' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the results come in, if there's pagination, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context.

    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, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the core functionality.

    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 listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context about what 'known' means, how results are formatted, or any behavioral constraints. Without annotations or output schema, more completeness would be helpful for an agent to use this tool effectively.

    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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters since none exist, earning a baseline score of 4 for this dimension.

    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 action ('List') and target resource ('known cosense pages from my-project project on cosen.se'), providing specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_page' (which likely retrieves a single page), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_page' or any alternatives. It states what the tool does but offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

    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

cosense-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

cosense-mcp-server 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/funwarioisii/cosense-mcp-server'

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