county-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 targets a distinct aspect of Kenya county information (CDF, budget, contacts, demographics, services, wards) with no overlap in purpose, allowing clear differentiation.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent pattern of a topic descriptor followed by a common suffix (guide, directory, information), all in snake_case, making them predictable and easy to understand.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools covering key county-related information categories, the set is well-scoped for an informational server—neither too sparse nor overloaded.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers essential county information areas, but as a demo it lacks some potentially useful tools (e.g., county legislation, project tracker), though core needs are met.
Average 2/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 1.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 38 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 18, 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

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavior but only says 'contact directory' and 'DEMO'. It does not disclose whether it returns all counties, handles null input, requires authentication, or any side effects. The 'DEMO' tag suggests non-production data but is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence) but lacks substantive information. Conciseness is not valuable when it omits critical details; this is underspecification, not efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and only one parameter, the description fails to explain what the directory contains (e.g., fields returned) or how to use the parameter. For a directory tool, more context is needed to be minimally useful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to the single parameter 'county'. The schema indicates it can be string or null but the description does not explain how it filters or what default behavior is.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Kenya county government contact directory' which vaguely indicates a directory for county contacts, but does not specify what type of contact information (e.g., phone, address) or how it relates to sibling tools like 'county_information' or 'ward_information'. The addition of 'DEMO' adds ambiguity about data authenticity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 alternatives. No scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states it provides information but fails to mention read-only nature, required permissions, effect of null county, or response format. The 'DEMO' tag hints at incomplete functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but at the cost of essential information—this is under-specification, not effective conciseness. It does not earn its place by providing useful context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema existing, the description fails to cover the tool's core functionality and parameter behavior. For a tool with one optional parameter, complete guidance is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds zero detail about the sole parameter 'county'. The user is left guessing its purpose (e.g., filtering, required?) and default behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Kenya county devolution and budget information. DEMO.' is vague and does not specify what the tool actually returns or how it differs from siblings like 'county_information' or 'ward_information'. The 'DEMO' suffix suggests incompleteness, further obscuring purpose.
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 (e.g., for budget queries vs. contact lookups). Context signals show related siblings but no explicit usage conditions or exclusions.
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 present, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, any side effects, or what happens with the input parameter. The 'DEMO' tag hints it might not be production-ready but is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence plus 'DEMO') but it is not informative. It lacks essential details and does not earn its length; it is under-specified rather than concise.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description is too minimal to be complete. It does not explain when to invoke the tool, how to use the optional parameter, or what kind of information is returned, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter 'county' with no description. Schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain the parameter or its expected format, leaving the agent without guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says 'Kenya ward-level civic information and ward representative role. DEMO.' It vaguely indicates the tool provides ward information but does not specify a clear verb+resource action or distinguish from sibling tools like county_information.
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. Sibling tools exist (e.g., county_information) but no comparison or context 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?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. Only 'DEMO' hints at limited reliability, but it does not clarify read/write behavior, required permissions, or side effects. The agent cannot infer operational safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but lacks essential details. Conciseness is not valuable when it omits critical information; the sentence barely adds value beyond the name.
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?
Despite low complexity (1 optional parameter, output schema exists), the description fails to explain the tool's inputs, outputs, or behavior. The agent cannot reliably determine how to invoke or interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%; the parameter 'service' has no description or constraints in the schema, and the tool description adds no explanation of its purpose or acceptable values. The agent has no guidance on how to use this parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it covers services at Kenya county government level, giving a general idea of the tool's domain. However, it lacks a verb to indicate the action (e.g., list, get, search) and does not differentiate from siblings like county_information or ward_information.
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 its siblings. The addition of 'DEMO' suggests it's experimental, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions are given.
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, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'DEMO' and 'demographics and basic statistics,' lacking details on read-only nature, data source, or side effects. The 'DEMO' tag could mislead about production readiness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief but lacks essential content. It is not well-structured and does not earn its place by providing necessary context.
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?
Given the output schema exists, return values are partly covered. However, the description omits parameter meaning, data granularity, and example usage, making it incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the two parameters (county, region). An AI agent cannot infer filtering or usage from the description alone.
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 it provides 'Kenya county demographics and basic statistics,' which specifies the verb (provide) and resource (county demographics). It distinguishes from sibling tools like budget and services guides, but does not explicitly differentiate.
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 (e.g., ward_information for finer granularity). No exclusions or context for appropriate use.
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 present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. 'Guide' suggests a read-only operation, and 'DEMO' implies limited or non-production data, but these are implicit. The agent cannot determine permissions, data freshness, or whether the tool is safe for production use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise but lacks structure. The 'DEMO' label is unclear and could be expanded. While brevity is valued, the description could be improved by front-loading key purpose details without adding wordiness.
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?
Despite zero parameters and an output schema, the description does not explain what the guide contains or how the output is structured. Given sibling tools with similar naming, this lack of completeness could lead to incorrect tool selection. The DEMO note further reduces 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?
There are zero parameters, so the input schema is fully covered. The description adds context by indicating the tool is a guide (informational) and a demo, which provides some semantic meaning beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the tool as a guide about Kenya's Constituency Development Fund, which is a specific resource. However, it lacks detail on the type of information provided (e.g., allocation, projects, contacts), and the 'DEMO' label is ambiguous. Compared to sibling tools like 'county_budget_guide', the purpose is similar but moderately clear.
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. Siblings include other guides and directories, but the description does not specify scenarios where 'cdf_guide' is preferable, leaving the agent without decision support.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![county-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/gabrielmahia/county-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/gabrielmahia/county-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/gabrielmahia/county-mcp'

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