Skip to main content
Glama
howbizarre

B2Bizzio MCP Server

by howbizarre
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have completely distinct purposes: get_info retrieves service information, while echo simply returns a message. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both names are lowercase verbs, but get_info follows a verb_noun pattern with an underscore, while echo is just a bare verb. The naming is mostly consistent but shows a minor stylistic deviation.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin and minimal. The count is borderline acceptable for a very focused utility, but it may be insufficient for a full-featured service.

    Completeness1/5

    The domain appears to be B2Bizzio services, but only get_info is relevant to that domain, and echo is an unrelated utility. There are no create, update, delete, or other operational tools, making the surface severely incomplete.

  • Average 3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 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

  • 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but does not disclose return format, potential errors, rate limits, or what happens for invalid topics. The single sentence provides minimal transparency beyond the tool's name.

    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 with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it is under-specified to the point of providing minimal value, so it is not well-structured for an agent to act on. It is neither verbose nor sufficiently informative.

    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 is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description still fails to explain what kind of information is available, what valid topic values look like, or what response format to expect. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse to be considered complete.

    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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'topic' parameter with a basic string description. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning, so it does not improve on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

    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 a clear verb ('Get') and a resource ('B2Bizzio services'), but remains vague about what kind of information is returned or what 'services' encompasses. It does not meaningfully distinguish this tool from the sibling 'echo' beyond being a generic information lookup.

    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 alternatives, no context for what topics are valid, and no mention of any constraints. The description simply restates the tool's basic function without helping an agent decide when to invoke 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?

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without mentioning side effects, output format, safety profile, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap.

    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, tight sentence that conveys the essential meaning without extra words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

    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 is very simple, and the description sufficiently conveys the basic behavior. However, it could have explicitly stated the return value or lack of side effects for full completeness, especially given the absence of an output schema or annotations.

    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 fully describes the 'message' parameter (100% coverage), so the description adds no new semantic information beyond what is already in the schema. The baseline of 3 applies here.

    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 ('echo') and resource ('message back to the user'), clearly stating the tool's function. It naturally distinguishes from the sibling tool get_info, which is about retrieving information.

    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. The description only states the action and gives no context about appropriate use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites.

    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

B2Bizzio MCP Server MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

B2Bizzio MCP Server MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama

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/howbizarre/b2bizzio-mcp'

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