Skip to main content
Glama
hawx1993

antd-weather-mcp

by hawx1993
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct resource: read_file for file contents, get_repository for repo metadata, and list_directory for directory listings. There is no overlap or ambiguity among them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: read_file, get_repository, list_directory. This makes the set predictable and easy to navigate.

    Tool Count5/5

    With only 3 tools, the server is tightly scoped to read-only repository access. Each tool serves a distinct, necessary purpose and the count is appropriate for this narrow domain.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool set covers the core read operations for a repository: listing directories, reading files, and fetching repository metadata. There are no obvious gaps within the intended scope.

  • Average 3.5/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 3 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, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'real-time reading' but does not disclose potential side effects, error behavior, access requirements, or return format. For a read operation on a directory, more context (e.g., whether it recursively lists, includes file metadata) is needed.

    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?

    A single, clear sentence conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the key action and target.

    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 description mentions the specific repository, which is useful context, but it lacks information about the output format (e.g., whether it returns only names or metadata), pagination, and error handling. Given there is no output schema, this gap reduces completeness slightly.

    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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (ref and path), so the description adds no additional meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

    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 reads a directory file list from a specific repository (ant-design/ant-design), with a specific verb ('读取') and resource ('文件列表'). It distinguishes from siblings like read_file (which reads file contents) and get_repository (which likely retrieves repository metadata).

    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, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply states what it does without contextualizing its use among sibling tools.

    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, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states '实时读取' (real-time read), which implies current data fetching, but omits details about response format, error handling, or limitations. Minimal behavioral transparency.

    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 front-loaded with the action ('读取') and the target ('ant-design/ant-design 仓库'). It is efficient and contains no extraneous words.

    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?

    The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what '基本情報' (basic information) includes and what the return value looks like. It remains vague, and no usage context is provided relative to sibling tools, leaving the agent uncertain about expectations.

    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, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is required since there are no parameters to document.

    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 uses a specific verb '读取' (read) and clearly targets the ant-design/ant-design repository. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like read_file and list_directory by focusing on repository-level basic information rather than file contents or directory listings.

    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 compared to read_file or list_directory. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

    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 burden. It adds the qualifiers 'real-time' and 'text file', indicating the tool fetches live content and only supports text files. However, it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or any limitations beyond text-only.

    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, compact sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no 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 simple file-reading tool with a fully described schema, this description is largely complete. It would benefit from explicitly stating the return value (file content) and handling of binary files, but the 'text file content' wording partially covers this.

    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% since both 'path' and 'ref' have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description itself does not add extra parameter meaning, matching the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

    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 reads text file content from the ant-design/ant-design repository, providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings (list_directory, get_repository) by focusing on content retrieval rather than directory listing or repo metadata.

    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 via its purpose—if you need file content, use read_file—but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like list_directory. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

    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

antd-weather-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

antd-weather-mcp 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/hawx1993/antd-weather-mcp'

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