lightspeed-x
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.2.0
- Disambiguation5/5
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap between tool purposes. The tool's role as a credential/setup status check is clearly defined.
Naming Consistency5/5A single tool name cannot exhibit inconsistency. 'lightspeed_setup_status' is descriptive, snake_case, and follows a predictable pattern for this server.
Tool Count1/5A single setup/status tool is an extreme mismatch for a server named 'lightspeed-x'. The tool explicitly references other Lightspeed tools that do not exist, making the surface feel incomplete and unbalanced.
Completeness1/5The server provides no actual Lightspeed operations—only a credential status check. This is severely incomplete for a Lightspeed integration domain and leaves agents with no way to perform real tasks.
Average 4.7/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 5 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
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.jsonto 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
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description need not restate safety labels. It adds valuable context: the tool never returns the token itself, and it reports the exact file path and content to create when credentials are absent. This is a useful disclosure beyond the structured hints, warranting a 4.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage conditions, then a safety note. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repeated information. Ideal conciseness for a tool of this simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema) and the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly: the exact condition to invoke it, what it reveals (success or failure plus remediation info), and its non-sensitive nature. Nothing is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the schema is trivially covered at 100%, and the rubric sets a baseline of 4 for this case. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but nothing is missing—there is nothing to document. The baseline score is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a precise statement of what the tool does: report whether the server has working Lightspeed credentials and, if not, provide the exact file path and content to fix it. This is a specific verb-resource pair that leaves no doubt about the tool's role, and it stands alone clearly even without siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit, actionable usage guidance: call this first when a Lightspeed tool fails with a credential error, when the user reports Lightspeed is not connected, or during initial setup. It also notes the tool is safe to call at any time, covering both when to use and the absence of constraints.
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:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/genvjacobc/lightspeed-x-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server