spring-mosaic

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are mostly distinct with clear purposes. Some overlap exists between PR review tools (e.g., get_pr_review_brief vs review_pr_diff), but descriptions differentiate them effectively.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., detect_spring_context, list_quality_domains), making them predictable and easy to use.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose (Spring/Java quality and PR review). No tool feels unnecessary, and the count is appropriate for the domain.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of quality analysis: detection (detect_spring_context), exploration (list_quality_domains, get_quality_guide, explain_pattern), and PR review (brief, sections, orchestration, architecture, scanning). No obvious gaps.
Average 2.8/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 1.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 29, 2026
- 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

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description says 'orchestration' but does not disclose whether the tool is destructive, requires authentication, modifies state, or has side effects. With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it fails to provide any behavioral insight.
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 a single sentence, making it concise, but it is vague and does not earn its place fully. It could be restructured to include key information without being longer.
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 the tool has no output schema, no annotations, and two parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, behavior, or usage steps. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly.
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 (changedFiles, workspaceRoot) with 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond their names. It does not clarify expected format, purpose, or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'PR review orchestration: changed files, extensions, and review steps.' It is somewhat specific about the components but vague on what the tool actually does or returns. Sibling tools like 'get_pr_review_brief' and 'get_review_sections_for_diff' suggest a range of PR review actions, and this description does not sufficiently distinguish 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?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or context. It leaves the agent to infer usage.
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 full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention side effects, permissions needed, output format, or any potential destructive actions.
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?
The description is a single short sentence, but it lacks substantive information. While concise in word count, it fails to efficiently convey necessary details, making it under-specified rather than effectively concise.
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 the complexity of an architecture review tool, with no output schema and two parameters, the description should explain inputs, outputs, and behavior. It provides none of this, leaving the tool nearly unusable without external documentation.
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%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not describe the required 'changedFiles' array or the optional 'workspaceRoot' string, leaving their meaning and usage entirely unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Architecture checklist for a Java/Spring diff,' which suggests a review function but is vague about the specific action (e.g., generate checklist, validate architecture). It lacks a strong verb and resource distinction from sibling tools like detect_spring_context or review_pr_diff.
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 usage guidelines provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
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, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, side effects, or output format. It only mentions content (format and anti-patterns) but not behavior.
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?
The description is extremely brief (one short sentence), but it sacrifices essential details. Conciseness is achieved at the cost of clarity, making it insufficient for effective tool selection.
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 one simple parameter and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns and how to use it. It fails to do so, leaving the agent with significant gaps in understanding the tool's complete behavior.
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 single parameter workspaceRoot has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the overall description adds no meaning about its purpose or expected value. The agent has no guidance on how to set this parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it provides a 'Minimal PR review brief' focusing on 'review format + anti-patterns,' giving a basic sense of purpose. However, it does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like get_quality_guide or review_pr_diff, which also relate to PR reviews.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite information, leaving the agent to guess its applicability.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. Only mentions version-scoping for spring-boot domain. Omits side effects (likely read-only), return format, and any special permissions or restrictions.
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?
Two sentences, no fluff. But excessively minimal; could add more context without becoming verbose. Adequate for conciseness but lacks substance.
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?
Does not describe the return value (guide content, format), how to use the output, or how the workspaceRoot parameter affects behavior. Leaves gaps for a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema.
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%. Description does not explain either parameter beyond an implicit reference to domain (spring-boot). The workspaceRoot parameter and enum values are left entirely to the schema.
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?
Clearly states it fetches one quality guide and notes a domain-specific nuance (spring-boot version scoping). Distinguishes from likely sibling list_quality_domains. However, does not differentiate from other siblings like explain_pattern or review_architecture.
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?
Implies usage for fetching a single guide, but provides no explicit context on when to use versus alternatives like explain_pattern or review_architecture. No 'when not to use' guidance.
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?
Without annotations, the description only says 'heuristic scan', implying non-exhaustive and read-only behavior, but lacks explicit details on side effects, permissions, or error handling.
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 a single sentence that is not verbose, but it omits critical information. It is concise in length but not in content, earning a middle score.
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?
For a tool with 3 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide enough context for correct invocation or interpretation of results.
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 information about parameters (filePath, source, workspaceRoot). The agent must guess their meaning and usage.
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 indicates the tool scans Java/Kotlin source code for Spring anti-patterns, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like detect_spring_context or review_pr_diff, though 'heuristic' is slightly vague.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor prerequisites or conditions for use. The agent is left to infer context from the tool name alone.
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 must fully disclose behavior. It only states the return type ('quality sections') and filtering aspect ('relevant to changed file types'), but fails to mention side effects, permission requirements, output structure, or behavior with invalid input (e.g., empty changedExtensions). This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's runtime characteristics.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front- loads the main action. However, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter hints without sacrificing 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?
Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too short to provide complete guidance. An agent would likely need additional information about the 'quality sections' concept, expected input formats, and return structure to use the tool correctly.
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?
The schema provides a description for 'changedExtensions' (an example) but not for 'workspaceRoot'. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, leaving the purpose of 'workspaceRoot' unclear and failing to compensate for the 50% schema coverage. The description implies 'changed file types' maps to 'changedExtensions', but this is basic inference.
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 returns 'quality sections relevant to changed file types', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_quality_domains' or 'get_quality_guide', though 'quality sections' is undefined. Overall, the purpose is clear but could be more explicit about what constitutes a 'quality section'.
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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_quality_guide' or 'scan_violations'. There is no guidance on prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and parameters.
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 must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the tool's purpose. It does not indicate side effects, read-only nature, or any requirements, leaving the agent with insufficient information.
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 immediately conveys the tool's purpose without superfluous words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 output schema and only two parameters (one undocumented), the description is incomplete. It does not specify return format, depth of explanation, or how workspaceRoot is used, leaving gaps for the agent.
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 topic parameter's description gives examples (jpa, rest dto, constructor injection), adding value beyond the schema type. However, the workspaceRoot parameter lacks any description, and the tool description does not compensate for the 50% schema coverage gap.
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 'Deep-dive on a Spring/Java topic' clearly states the verb (deep-dive, i.e., explain) and resource (Spring/Java topics like jpa, rest). It distinguishes from sibling tools such as get_quality_guide and review_architecture, which serve different purposes.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_quality_guide or detect_spring_context. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios.
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 provided, so description must carry the full burden. The description implies a read-only detection operation but does not explicitly state safety (e.g., no side effects). Lacks details on permissions or impact.
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 sentences, no filler, front-loaded with action. Every word earns its place.
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?
While the tool's purpose is clear, it lacks description of output format or how results feed into sibling tools. Given no output schema, the description should provide more context on what the agent receives after calling.
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% for the single parameter. Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's description of 'workspaceRoot'.
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?
Description states specific verb 'Detect' and specific resources: Spring Boot / Java version, build tool, and modules. The instruction 'Call first' further clarifies its role. Sibling tools are quality/review tools, making this distinct.
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?
Explicitly says 'Call first,' indicating it should be used before other sibling tools. No alternative tools or when-not-to-use guidance provided, but the context is clear.
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?
Although no annotations are provided, the description communicates that the tool returns an index (list) of domains, which is transparent for a read-only operation. It adds value beyond the empty input schema.
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 with no wasted words. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool that returns a simple index, the description is fully complete. It states the purpose and usage context without needing more detail.
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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The description does not need to add parameter information, and the baseline of 4 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 it is an index of Java/Spring quality domains and that it should be called first to discover what to fetch, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that likely require a domain parameter.
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 says 'Call first to discover what to fetch,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. It implies use before other tools but does not explicitly exclude other use cases.
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:

[![spring-mosaic MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/himakarinv-stack/spring-mosaic/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/himakarinv-stack/spring-mosaic)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![spring-mosaic MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/himakarinv-stack/spring-mosaic/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/himakarinv-stack/spring-mosaic)

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/himakarinv-stack/spring-mosaic'

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