mtg-forja

by grutino

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct role in the deck analysis workflow: resolving, radiographing, synergy detection, rule listing, known combos, and three rendering formats. The descriptions effectively highlight the unique purpose of each, even where there is some underlying overlap in resolving the deck.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern in Spanish (resolver_mazo, detectar_sinergias), but a few use noun phrases (radiografia_del_mazo, combos_conocidos) or an English verb (render_*). The snake_case consistency and readable Spanish keep the names predictable overall, but the mix of syntactic patterns prevents a perfect score.
Tool Count5/5
The 9 tools are well-scoped for a Magic deck analysis server, covering resolution, analysis, synergy detection, and output generation without redundancy or bloat. The count feels appropriate for the purpose, fitting comfortably within the effective range.
Completeness5/5
The server provides a complete lifecycle for deck analysis: resolving against Scryfall, deep fact extraction, synergy discovery, known combo lookup, and multiple rendering options. The inclusion of an 'analizar' shortcut also covers the full automatic pipeline, leaving no critical gaps in the core workflow.
Average 3.8/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 14 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- 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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states the return value ('Devuelve la ruta del archivo'), which provides some behavioral transparency. However, there are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose side effects and prerequisites. It does not mention whether a file is written to disk, whether existing files are overwritten, or any access or formatting requirements, leaving significant gaps.
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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It immediately states the action and the return value with no redundant phrasing or unnecessary details, achieving maximum efficiency for its length.
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?
While the tool is relatively simple, the description fails to explain the two parameters or any usage context. The output schema is indicated as existing, but the description still must clarify parameters and prerequisites, which it does not. This leaves the tool under-specified for reliable invocation.
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 input schema has two parameters ('ruta' and 'documento') with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain the purpose or acceptable values for either parameter, leaving the agent to guess that 'documento' is the source document and 'ruta' is the output path. This is a critical omission for parameter understanding.
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 generates a double-sided A4 printable cheat sheet and returns the file path. The verb 'Genera' and specific resource 'chuleta imprimible de dos caras A4' make the core function clear. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like render_guia or render_mapa, which likely have overlapping functionality.
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 such as render_guia or render_mapa. There are no described prerequisites, input requirements, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The description only explains what it does, not when to use it.
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 is the only source of behavioral information. While it notes the tool returns a file path, it does not disclose side effects such as file creation/overwriting, required permissions, idempotency, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a tool that likely writes files.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action. No unnecessary words; it efficiently conveys the primary function and the return value.
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?
While the output schema exists and the description mentions the return type, the tool has required parameters with no descriptions and no annotations. The overall context (prerequisites, relationship to sibling tools like detectar_sinergias) is missing, making it inadequate for correct invocation.
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 explanation of the 'ruta' and 'documento' parameters. Their names give limited clues, but the required 'documento' parameter is not defined, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid invocation confidently.
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: generating the interactive synergy map ('mapa interactivo de sinergias') and returning the file path. The verb 'Genera' and the specific resource distinguish it from sibling render tools like render_guia and render_chuleta.
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. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where other render tools (e.g., render_guia) would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It is transparent about the output being a draft ('Trátalas como borrador'), includes an `evidencia` field, and admits the engine may miss synergies ('añade las que el motor no vea'). This adds significant context beyond a bare summary, though it does not mention potential side effects or permissions.
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 efficient and structured: it states the function, the return document, and the draft nature of results in three sentences. Each sentence adds value, though the phrase 'Resuelve el mazo' could be more precise.
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?
The coverage is partial: it explains output structure and behavior but lacks parameter guidance and explicit usage differentiation from sibling tools. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the required `lista` parameter is left undefined, making the tool somewhat less complete for an agent.
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%, and the description does not explain either parameter (`lista` and `nombre`). The tool's purpose implies `lista` is a deck list, but the description fails to state what to pass for `lista` or how `nombre` is used, leaving the agent without essential input guidance.
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: 'Resuelve el mazo y busca patrones de interacción entre sus cartas' (solves the deck and looks for interaction patterns). It also specifies the output (a document with cards, curve, and candidate synergies), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'combos_conocidos' by emphasizing candidate discovery over known combos.
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 usage context: it is a draft generator for synergy candidates, telling the user to rewrite, discard, or add synergies. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude scenarios, leaving the choice between this and sibling tools like 'combos_conocidos' or 'analizar' unaddressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implicitly indicates a read-only listing operation and discloses the return fields (id and what patterns look for), but it does not explicitly state side effects, pagination, or any prerequisites. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb and resource. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
For a simple zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and return content. It lacks deeper context such as when to use it or what 'patrones de interacción' implies, but given the low complexity, it is sufficiently complete.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The schema coverage is 100% and the description adds no parameter-related information, which is acceptable. Baseline for 0-param tools is 4.
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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') and identifies the resource ('patrones de interacción que conoce el motor'), and specifies the output contents ('con su id y qué buscan'). It is clear and distinct from the sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description only states what the tool does, not in which context it should be preferred over alternatives like combos_conocidos or detectar_sinergias.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Al no haber anotaciones, la descripción asume la responsabilidad y comunica que es un atajo que genera textos automáticos con calidad limitada, y recomienda el flujo manual para mejores resultados. No detalla efectos secundarios ni permisos, pero la advertencia de uso aporta contexto conductual relevante.
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?
El texto es breve y eficaz: una frase para el propósito, otra para el uso recomendado y una tercera para la alternativa. No hay relleno ni repeticiones.
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?
Aporta contexto de flujo y limitación, pero omite la semántica de los parámetros y los detalles concretos de lo que hace 'resolver/detectar'. Dado que hay un parámetro requerido sin documentar, el agente no tiene lo necesario para invocar la herramienta con seguridad.
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?
La cobertura del esquema es 0% y la descripción no menciona los parámetros 'lista', 'ruta' ni 'nombre'. Un agente no puede inferir qué significan ni cómo usarlos, por lo que la descripción no compensa en absoluto la falta de información.
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?
La descripción usa verbos concretos ('resuelve, detecta y genera los tres HTML') y se distingue de los hermanos al presentarse como un atajo que combina detectar_sinergias y los render_*. Aunque 'resuelve' es algo vago, el recurso y la acción principal están claros.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Indica explícitamente cuándo usarlo ('primera pasada rápida') y ofrece una alternativa concreta: encadenar detectar_sinergias, reescribir y los tres render_*. Esto cumple completamente la dimensión.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does state the return value ('Devuelve la ruta del archivo creado') and the input format, which is valuable. It does not detail side effects or error behaviors, but the key behavioral trait (output file path) is disclosed.
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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and includes essential details about input and output without wasted words.
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?
For a tool with an output schema (per context signals), the description sufficiently covers the purpose, input, and return value. The missing explanation of `ruta` is a minor gap, but overall the description is adequate given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema.
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 description explains the main parameter `documento` as 'el JSON de `detectar_sinergias`', which is crucial. However, the `ruta` parameter is completely unexplained, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description does not fully compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
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 purpose: 'Genera la guía extensa en HTML a partir de un documento de análisis.' It uses a specific verb (genera) and resource (guía extensa en HTML), and distinguishes from sibling render tools by noting the input from detectar_sinergias.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context on when to use the tool by referring to the JSON from detectar_sinergias and suggesting the document should be 'idealmente ya reescrito por ti'. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like render_chuleta or render_mapa, so usage guidance is clear but lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the nature of output (objective facts, not interpretations), the specific per-card fields, and deck-level aggregations. It also notes that the pattern engine only finds existing written patterns, implying this tool provides novel data. However, it does not mention input format validation, error behavior, or performance characteristics.
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?
Front-loaded with the core purpose, uses clear bullet points for output details, and each sentence adds value. It is well-structured for the complexity and not overly verbose.
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?
Given there is an output schema (not shown), the description thoroughly covers the conceptual output: per-card signals and deck-level stats. It also positions the tool within the sibling set. However, it omits input format prerequisites and potential edge cases (e.g., malformed deck lists), leaving a minor gap.
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?
Schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the expected format for 'lista' or the purpose of 'nombre'. It implies 'lista' is a deck list via 'para cada carta', but lacks explicit parameter semantics, syntax, or examples.
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 provides objective deck facts: per-card oracle text and verifiable signals (alcance, tipos_que_menciona, zonas_que_toca, velocidad), plus deck-level stats. It distinguishes itself from pattern-based tools by positioning this as raw data for reasoning, not pre-computed patterns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to use 'ANTES de escribir el análisis' and 'junto con detectar_sinergias', giving a clear when-to-use. It also contrasts with the 'motor de patrones' (likely combos_conocidos) to clarify that this tool provides facts while the pattern engine finds already-known patterns.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Sin anotaciones, la descripción explica que los datos no son texto de oráculo verificado, provienen de una curación comunitaria y son la única fuente no Scryfall del servidor. También detalla el contenido de la respuesta (combos completos y casi completos), lo que aporta transparencia sobre la fiabilidad y estructura de los datos.
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?
La descripción es clara y estructurada: comienza con el propósito, luego las advertencias y finalmente el contexto complementario. Cada oración aporta información relevante; el uso de listas numeradas facilita la lectura.
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?
Dado que existe un esquema de salida, la descripción no necesita detallar la estructura de retorno, pero sí ofrece contexto sobre la fuente, la advertencia de verificación y el rol frente a otras herramientas. Cubre adecuadamente aspectos clave aunque no profundiza en el formato de entrada.
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?
El esquema tiene 0% de cobertura de descripciones. La descripción no explica los parámetros `lista` ni `nombre`. Solo se infiere que `lista` se refiere al mazo por la frase 'en el mazo', pero no se detalla el formato ni el propósito de `nombre`, dejando una brecha importante.
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?
La descripción indica claramente que devuelve combos catalogados según Commander Spellbook, diferenciando completos y casi completos, con cartas implicadas, qué produce y pasos redactados. Se distingue de herramientas hermanas como resolver_mazo o radiografia_del_mazo al señalar que complementa al motor de patrones.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Ofrece pautas explícitas: sugiere verificar con resolver_mazo o radiografia_del_mazo antes de usar los resultados, y menciona que es complementaria al motor de patrones, indicando cuándo usar esta herramienta frente a alternativas.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior: querying Scryfall and returning authoritative oracle text, and warns against citing from memory. It does not cover rate limits or failure modes, but for a read-only resolver the key behavioral trait is well explained.
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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second gives formats and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or fluff.
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 tool has an output schema, so return value details are not needed. The description provides input format details and a strong usage rule. It is moderately complete, though it does not mention potential errors or network dependencies, which would be useful but not essential.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the 'lista' parameter, including supported formats and example line format. The 'nombre' parameter is only implied by its default value 'Mazo', but that is low-risk and easily inferred.
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 resolves a deck list against Scryfall and returns the real oracle text. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying its unique function of resolving card text, not analyzing synergies or rendering guides.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs to always use this tool before claiming anything about what a card does, and lists accepted input formats. It does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, but the guidance is clear and actionable.
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:

[![mtg-forja MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/grutino/mtg-forja/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/grutino/mtg-forja)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mtg-forja MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/grutino/mtg-forja/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/grutino/mtg-forja)

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/grutino/mtg-forja'

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