Skip to main content
Glama
goodvat

goodvat

by goodvat
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.0.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one for searching tax guides and one for validating EU VAT numbers. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools use consistent camelCase naming with a verb_noun pattern (searchTaxGuides, validateEuVatNumber), making the pattern predictable.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for a domain like tax and VAT, which typically requires more functionality such as tax rate lookups, guide retrieval, or bulk validation.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is incomplete for the domain: it lacks tools for retrieving specific guide content, searching by tax type, or handling non-EU VAT numbers, leaving significant gaps.

  • Average 3.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 1 commit 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

  • 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?

    Annotations indicate 'destructiveHint: true' and 'openWorldHint: true', suggesting side effects or external dependencies, but the description describes a read-only validation operation. This contradiction undermines transparency, and no additional behavioral context is provided beyond annotations.

    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 a single clear sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous text, achieving appropriate conciseness.

    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 clear parameters, the description fails to address the contradiction between its stated read-only nature and the annotations indicating destructiveness, nor does it clarify return values or external dependencies, leaving significant gaps for a validation tool.

    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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters are adequately described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

    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 validates an EU VAT number against the official VIES database, specifying the verb 'Validate' and the precise resource, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'searchTaxGuides' which likely handles tax documentation.

    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 a validation context but provides no explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool compared to alternatives, missing exclusions or prerequisites.

    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?

    The description contradicts annotations: it describes a read-only search operation, yet annotations set destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. No explanation is provided for this discrepancy, and no behavioral traits are disclosed beyond the annotation contradiction.

    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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any extraneous information. It is front-loaded and efficient.

    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?

    Given the single parameter, no output schema, and the tool's complexity, the description covers the basic purpose. However, the annotation contradiction and lack of return value information leave gaps in completeness.

    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?

    The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'query' parameter, which is well-described. The tool description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

    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 searches 'GoodVAT tax guides' for 'technical tax guides, state laws, and VAT regulations', with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from the sibling tool 'validateEuVatNumber', which validates VAT numbers.

    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 use when needing to search tax guides, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The sibling tool is sufficiently different, so no exclusion is needed, but the description could still benefit from usage context.

    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-server-goodvat MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-server-goodvat 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/goodvat/mcp-server-goodvat'

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