Research MCP Server

by h-yanagawa

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: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
The tools are mostly distinct with clear purposes: creating, getting, and updating survey summaries, plus a property definition tool. However, 'get_survey_summaries' and 'get_survey_summary' could be slightly confusing due to similar names, but their descriptions clarify one fetches multiple summaries and the other a single one. No major overlap exists between other tools.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming follows a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case throughout, such as 'create_new_survey_summary' and 'update_survey_summary_property'. The only minor deviation is 'get_property_definition' which uses a slightly different noun structure compared to others, but it still fits the overall pattern well.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, this server is well-scoped for managing survey summaries in a research context. The count is appropriate, covering core operations like create, get, and update without being overwhelming or too sparse, making it efficient for agents to handle typical workflows.
Completeness3/5
The server provides good coverage for survey summary operations, including create, get, and update functions. However, there is a notable gap: no delete tool is present, which could limit full lifecycle management. Additionally, while property handling is included, the lack of a delete operation for survey summaries reduces completeness for CRUD workflows.
Average 1.9/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 1/5.
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
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.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers nothing beyond the basic action. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it has side effects, rate limits, or what format the summary returns. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just three words, this description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It lacks the necessary information density - every word should earn its place, but these three words provide almost no value beyond the tool name itself. The description is too brief to be helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a single undocumented parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'survey summary' is, how it differs from other survey-related tools, what the parameter means, or what the tool returns. For a tool with this complexity and context, the description fails to provide essential information.
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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the single parameter 'page_id' has no documentation in the schema. The description provides no information about this parameter - not what it represents, what format it should have, where to obtain it, or how it affects the operation. The description fails completely to compensate for the schema's documentation gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get survey summary' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful context. It doesn't specify what 'survey summary' entails, what resource it retrieves, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_survey_summaries' (plural). The description fails to provide the specific verb+resource clarity needed for effective tool selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or distinctions from sibling tools like 'get_survey_summaries' or 'create_new_survey_summary'. The agent receives no help in determining when this specific tool should be invoked.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get survey summaries' implies a read operation but doesn't specify whether it returns all summaries, filtered results, paginated data, or error conditions. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or response format, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Get survey summaries') but borders on under-specification rather than efficient communication. It's front-loaded but lacks the necessary detail to be truly helpful. While not verbose, it fails to earn a higher score due to insufficient content.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the tool definition is incomplete for effective use. The agent lacks information on what the tool returns, how it behaves, or how it differs from siblings. For a tool with multiple related siblings, this minimal description leaves too many contextual gaps.
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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. While it doesn't add semantic value beyond the schema, the baseline for this scenario is 4, as the schema already provides complete parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get survey summaries' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what 'survey summaries' are, what format they come in, or how this differs from the sibling 'get_survey_summary' tool. While it uses a clear verb ('Get'), it lacks the resource specificity needed for a higher score.
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 like 'get_survey_summary' or 'create_new_survey_summary'. The description doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.
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 provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is an 'update' operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious implication of mutation.
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 brief with two sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the operation and providing a prerequisite. There's no unnecessary verbiage. However, it could be more front-loaded with clearer purpose before the prerequisite note.
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?
This is a mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema. The description doesn't explain what a 'survey summary property' is, what resource is being updated, what the parameters mean, what happens after execution, or how this differs from sibling tools. For a tool with this complexity and lack of structured documentation, the description is insufficient.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'properties' but doesn't explain what 'page_id' refers to or what the 'updates' array contains. The reference to 'get_property_definition' hints at property semantics but doesn't clarify parameter meanings. The description adds some context but doesn't adequately explain the two required parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Update survey summary property' which is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. While it indicates a mutation operation (update), it doesn't specify what 'survey summary property' means or what resource is being modified. It lacks the specificity needed to distinguish this tool from its sibling 'update_survey_summary_block'.
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 provides one explicit guideline: 'To know definition of properties, use `get_property_definition` tool in advance.' This gives a prerequisite action but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_survey_summary_block' or 'create_new_survey_summary'. The guidance is helpful but incomplete regarding sibling tool differentiation.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get'), implying a read operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'property definition' entails (e.g., format, scope). This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'property definition' includes, the return format, or behavioral aspects like safety or constraints. For a tool with no structured data support, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is acceptable here, but it could have clarified implicit inputs (e.g., context-specific identifiers). Baseline is 4 for zero parameters.
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 ('Get') and the resource ('property definition for survey summary'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'get_survey_summary' or 'get_survey_summaries', which also retrieve survey-related data but target different resources.
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 doesn't mention scenarios for retrieving property definitions specifically, prerequisites, or how it differs from sibling tools that handle survey summaries or updates, leaving the agent without 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

Copy to your README.md:

[![research-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/h-yanagawa/research-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/h-yanagawa/research-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![research-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/h-yanagawa/research-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/h-yanagawa/research-mcp-server)

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/h-yanagawa/research-mcp-server'

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