User Info MCP Server

by huseyindol

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: add_user creates a new user, get_all_users retrieves all users, get_user_by_id fetches a specific user by ID, and the three search tools each target different attributes (email, name, phone). There is no overlap or ambiguity in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., add_user, get_all_users, search_users_by_email). The naming is predictable and readable throughout the set.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, this server is well-scoped for user information management. The count is appropriate, covering core operations (create, retrieve, search) without being excessive or insufficient for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers key user operations: creation (add_user), retrieval (get_all_users, get_user_by_id), and search (by email, name, phone). Minor gaps exist, such as missing update and delete operations, which agents might need to work around, but core workflows are largely supported.
Average 2.9/5 across 6 of 6 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action (search by name) without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, what permissions are needed, how results are returned (list, single user), pagination, error handling, or performance characteristics. This is inadequate for a search 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, efficient sentence in Turkish that directly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or differentiate it from similar search tools. For a search operation in a user management context, more guidance is needed to help the agent use it correctly.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'name' documented as 'Aranacak kullanıcı ismi' (User name to search). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or search semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'İsme göre kullanıcı ara' (Search users by name) states a clear verb ('ara' - search) and resource ('kullanıcı' - users), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like search_users_by_email or search_users_by_phone. It only specifies the search criteria (by name) without indicating what kind of search (exact match, partial, etc.) or what results to expect.
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 search_users_by_email, get_user_by_id, or get_all_users. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Yeni kullanıcı ekle' implies a mutation (creation) but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether it requires specific permissions, what happens on duplicate email/phone, if the operation is idempotent, rate limits, or what the response contains (e.g., user ID). For a write tool with zero annotation coverage, 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, efficient phrase ('Yeni kullanıcı ekle') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part earns its place by conveying the core action and resource without redundancy.
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 complexity (a write operation with 3 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.
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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (name, email, phone) well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'Kullanıcının tam adı' for name). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.
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 'Yeni kullanıcı ekle' (Add new user) clearly states the verb 'ekle' (add) and resource 'kullanıcı' (user), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings (like get_all_users, search_users_by_email, etc.), which are all read operations while this is a write operation. The distinction is implied but not explicitly stated.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions), when not to use it (e.g., for updating existing users), or refer to sibling tools like get_user_by_id for checking existing users before adding. The agent must infer usage from context 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action ('getir' - get/retrieve), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID doesn't exist), authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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, clear sentence: 'ID'ye göre belirli bir kullanıcıyı getir' (Get a specific user by ID). It's front-loaded with the core purpose, with zero wasted words or redundancy. Every word earns its place by specifying the action and key constraint.
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 simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error cases or response format, which are crucial for an AI agent to use it correctly. For a read operation with no structured output information, more context is needed.
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 mentions 'ID'ye göre' (by ID), which aligns with the single parameter 'id' in the schema. Schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already documenting the parameter as 'Kullanıcının ID'si' (user's ID) with type integer and exclusiveMinimum: 0. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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's purpose: 'get a specific user by ID' (ID'ye göre belirli bir kullanıcıyı getir). It specifies the verb ('getir' - get/retrieve) and resource ('kullanıcı' - user), distinguishing it from siblings like get_all_users (which retrieves all users) or search tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search tools that might also retrieve users by ID indirectly.
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like get_all_users (for listing all users) or search_users_by_email/name/phone (for searching by other criteria). There's no context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid user ID, or when this tool is preferred over search 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the search action without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, what happens with multiple matches, or the format of results. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 address behavioral aspects like search behavior (exact match vs partial), result format, or error handling, which are important for a search tool with no structured metadata.
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 has 100% description coverage, with the email parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
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's purpose as searching users by email address ('E-posta adresine göre kullanıcı ara'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_users_by_name or search_users_by_phone, though the email focus is implied.
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like search_users_by_name or get_user_by_id, nor does it specify scenarios where email-based search is preferred over other methods.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the search action without mentioning what the search returns (e.g., partial matches, exact matches, error handling), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any rate limits or permissions required. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, 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, efficient sentence in Turkish that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to understanding the tool's function.
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 the search returns (e.g., user objects, IDs, or error messages), how results are structured, or any limitations. For a search tool with no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the expected behavior and results.
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 implies a 'phone' parameter but doesn't add meaning beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% description coverage with a clear parameter description ('Aranacak Telefon numarası'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description doesn't elaborate on format expectations or search behavior beyond 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?
The description 'Telefon numarasına göre kullanıcı ara' clearly states the tool's purpose: searching for users by phone number. It specifies both the verb ('ara' - search) and the resource ('kullanıcı' - users), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_users_by_email' or 'search_users_by_name', which would require a 5.
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_users_by_email' or 'search_users_by_name' for different search criteria, nor does it indicate any prerequisites or exclusions. The user must infer usage 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates a read operation ('getir'), it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the list returns in (e.g., paginated or complete), or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Turkish that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication needs or return format. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should ideally provide more context about what 'list' entails, but it meets basic requirements for a simple retrieval tool.
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 the schema already fully documents that no parameters are required. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no filtering parameters are needed. Baseline is 4 for tools with 0 parameters, as the description adequately matches 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?
The description 'Tüm kullanıcıların listesini getir' clearly states the tool's purpose as retrieving a list of all users, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from its sibling tools like search_users_by_email or get_user_by_id, which would require mentioning that this tool returns all users without filtering.
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. It doesn't mention that this is for retrieving all users without filtering, as opposed to using sibling tools like search_users_by_email for filtered searches or get_user_by_id for single-user retrieval. No explicit when/when-not instructions 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

Copy to your README.md:

[![McpProjectScaffold MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/huseyindol/McpProjectScaffold/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/huseyindol/McpProjectScaffold)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![McpProjectScaffold MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/huseyindol/McpProjectScaffold/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/huseyindol/McpProjectScaffold)

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/huseyindol/McpProjectScaffold'

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