Skip to main content
Glama
glassBead-tc

MCP Bridge Server

by glassBead-tc
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Local

Server Quality Checklist

50%
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: discover_client is for finding/starting clients, while tools/call is for executing tools on those clients. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions, making them easy to differentiate.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    The naming is mixed: discover_client uses snake_case with a verb-noun pattern, while tools/call uses a path-like structure (noun/verb). This inconsistency in convention reduces predictability, though both names are still readable and descriptive.

    Tool Count4/5

    With only 2 tools, the count is minimal but appropriate for a bridge server's core functions of discovering clients and calling their tools. It feels slightly thin but covers essential operations without unnecessary bloat.

    Completeness4/5

    For a bridge server, the tools cover the key workflows: discovering clients and executing tools on them. A minor gap might be the lack of a tool for managing client connections (e.g., disconnecting), but the core functionality is well-covered.

  • Average 2.8/5 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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the optional 'start' functionality, it doesn't describe what happens during discovery (e.g., scanning processes, checking ports), what 'autoStart' actually does (e.g., launches process, establishes connection), timeout behavior, error conditions, or what constitutes successful discovery. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

    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 perfectly concise at 5 words, front-loading the core functionality ('Find and optionally start') immediately. Every word earns its place, with no redundant phrases or unnecessary elaboration. The structure efficiently communicates the essential action and target.

    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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (client handle? status object?), what happens during discovery failures, or how the parameters interact. For a client management tool with multiple configuration options, more context about behavior and outcomes is needed.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters2/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no information about any of the 3 parameters. It doesn't explain what 'clientType' values represent, what 'autoStart' controls, or what 'timeout' affects. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema, leaving all parameters semantically ambiguous.

    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 with a specific verb ('Find and optionally start') and resource ('MCP client'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'tools/call' by focusing on client discovery/startup rather than tool invocation. However, it doesn't specify what constitutes 'finding' a client (e.g., local discovery vs. network scanning).

    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 alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparison with the sibling 'tools/call' tool. The agent receives no help in determining whether this is for initial client setup, runtime client management, or troubleshooting scenarios.

    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. While 'Execute a tool' implies a potentially state-changing operation, the description doesn't specify whether this is read-only or destructive, what permissions are required, whether there are rate limits, or what happens on failure. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

    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 extremely concise at just 6 words, front-loading the core purpose with zero wasted language. Every word earns its place in communicating the essential function.

    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 3 parameters (2 required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, error conditions, or provide any parameter guidance. The description leaves too many open questions for effective agent use.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters2/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    With 0% schema description coverage for all 3 parameters, the description provides no information about what 'method', 'arguments', or 'targetType' represent. The description doesn't explain what constitutes a valid method name, what format arguments should take, or what the 'claude'/'cline' enum values mean. It fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

    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 ('Execute a tool') and target ('on a remote MCP client'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'discover_client', which appears to be a different type of operation (likely discovery vs. execution).

    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 alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparison with the sibling tool 'discover_client'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

    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

SubspaceDomain MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

SubspaceDomain 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/glassBead-tc/SubspaceDomain'

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