Skip to main content
Glama
globalpocket

mcp-reranker

by globalpocket
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

75%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.2

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion or overlap. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and distinct.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The single tool name 'rerank_documents' follows a clear verb_noun convention and is descriptive. With only one tool, consistency is inherently maintained.

    Tool Count3/5

    The server has only one tool, which is at the low end of acceptable scope. While it fulfills its core reranking purpose, the count feels thin for a general utility server.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool fully covers the domain of reranking documents against a query. No additional operations are necessary for the stated purpose, making the surface complete.

  • Average 4.1/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 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 Apache 2.0.

  • 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.

  • This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.

  • 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 disclose behavioral traits. It does explain that it uses a CrossEncoder, mentions the model default, and describes the return format. However, it does not mention potential side effects like model downloads, network requirements, or that scores are sorted in descending order (only says 'sorted'). These are meaningful behavioral details that are missing.

    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 well-structured and efficient: a one-sentence summary, clear Args, and Returns. No wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose.

    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?

    The description covers the essential inputs, behavior, and output format for a simple reranking tool. However, it omits the sort order (ascending/descending) and potential edge cases like empty document lists. Since an output schema exists, it is mostly complete but has minor gaps.

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

    Parameters5/5

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

    The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's Args section fully compensates by explaining each parameter, including the optional model_name and its default from env or 'BAAI/bge-reranker-v2-m3'. This adds complete semantic meaning beyond the schema.

    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: 'Reranks a list of documents based on their relevance to a given query.' The verb 'reranks' is specific and the resource is clearly identified. Though no sibling tools are listed, the purpose is unambiguous and distinct.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines3/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description implies when to use the tool (when you need to rerank documents by relevance) but does not explicitly state scenarios or provide exclusions. Since there are no sibling tools, explicit alternatives are not needed, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over other potential approaches.

    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

mcp-reranker MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-reranker 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/globalpocket/mcp-reranker'

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