Youth Activity Information MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes: get_facility_group_list, get_sido_list, get_sigungu_list, and search_youth_activities each target different data retrieval operations. However, echo and get_time are utility functions that don't directly relate to the youth activity domain and could be confused as overlapping in their generic nature.
Naming Consistency4/5
Four of the six tools follow a consistent get_* pattern (get_facility_group_list, get_sido_list, get_sigungu_list, get_time), which is clear and predictable. The remaining two tools (echo and search_youth_activities) deviate from this pattern, but the naming is still descriptive and readable.
Tool Count4/5
With 6 tools, the count is reasonable for a youth activity information server. It covers core data retrieval needs without being overwhelming. However, it feels slightly thin for a comprehensive domain, as it lacks update or management operations.
Completeness3/5
The toolset provides good read-only coverage for querying youth activities, facilities, and administrative regions, but it is incomplete. There are no tools for creating, updating, or deleting activities or facilities, which limits agents to retrieval-only workflows and may cause dead ends in more complex tasks.
Average 3/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't describe pagination behavior (implied by pageNo/numOfRows parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no filters are applied. The description is insufficient for a read operation with pagination.
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 that states the purpose and mentions filtering capabilities. It's appropriately concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, though it could be slightly more structured.
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?
For a read operation with 5 parameters and pagination, but no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, or error conditions. The agent would need to infer too much from the parameter names alone.
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%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters with descriptions. The description adds minimal value by mentioning three filtering options (sido, stName, gName) but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 verb ('조회합니다' - retrieves) and resource ('청소년 시설 그룹 목록' - youth facility group list), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_sido_list or get_sigungu_list, but the resource specificity provides some differentiation.
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 mentions filtering capabilities but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_youth_activities. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparison with 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the retrieval action without mentioning any behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates beyond its basic purpose.
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 purpose without any unnecessary words or redundancy. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its simple function, earning a high score for 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values (e.g., what data the list contains), pagination behavior, or any constraints, which are crucial for a list-retrieval tool. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.
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 clear documentation for both parameters ('pageNo' and 'numOfRows') including default values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate but minimal value addition.
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 verb '조회합니다' (retrieve) and the resource '청소년 활동 정보 시도(광역자치단체) 목록' (list of metropolitan autonomous districts for youth activity information), making the purpose specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_sigungu_list' (which likely retrieves municipal-level lists) or 'search_youth_activities' (which searches activities rather than administrative divisions), missing full sibling distinction.
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. There are no mentions of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and it doesn't reference sibling tools like 'get_sigungu_list' or 'search_youth_activities' for comparison, leaving usage unclear.
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 states the tool retrieves a list, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose other traits such as pagination behavior (implied by pageNo and numOfRows parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. For a tool with parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 Korean that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to clarifying 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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It adequately states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output, and usage context. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context about the retrieval process, result format, or limitations to be fully helpful for an AI 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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It mentions '특정 시도의' (for a specific province), which aligns with the 'sido' parameter, but doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions or usage. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters (sido, pageNo, numOfRows) with descriptions and defaults. The description doesn't compensate with additional insights, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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: '특정 시도의 시군구(기초자치단체) 목록을 조회합니다' translates to 'Retrieves a list of districts (basic local governments) for a specific province.' This specifies the verb (조회/retrieve) and resource (시군구 목록/district list) with a scope constraint (특정 시도/for a specific province). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_sido_list, which retrieves province lists rather than district lists for a province.
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 (e.g., get_sido_list for province lists or search_youth_activities for other data), prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context for selection among available 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 the full burden. It mentions filtering capabilities but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (e.g., pagination behavior implied by parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description is minimal and misses key operational context.
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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence efficiently lists filterable fields without unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from usage notes.
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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error cases, pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explained), and how to interpret results. For a search tool with multiple filters, more context is needed to guide effective use.
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%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing filterable fields (program name, organization name, region, period), but it doesn't provide additional semantics like usage examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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: 'search youth activity programs' (청소년 활동 프로그램을 검색합니다). It specifies the resource (youth activity programs) and the action (search), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_facility_group_list' or 'get_sido_list', which appear to be related but serve different functions.
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 mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for broad searches versus more specific sibling tools like 'get_sido_list' for region lists.
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 function of echoing a message, without mentioning any behavioral traits such as error handling, performance characteristics, or side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in 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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage guidelines and behavioral transparency. For a straightforward echo tool, this might be sufficient, but it does not fully address all contextual aspects like when to use it or potential limitations.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'message' fully documented in the schema as '반환할 메시지' (message to return). The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a 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 function: '입력받은 메시지를 그대로 반환합니다' translates to 'Returns the received message as is.' This specifies the verb ('returns') and resource ('message'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools, which are unrelated (e.g., get_facility_group_list, get_time), so it lacks sibling distinction.
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 states what the tool does but does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage. There is no implied or explicit advice on scenarios where this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent without usage direction.
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 states the tool returns the current time, but doesn't specify format (e.g., timestamp, string), timezone, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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: '현재 시간을 반환합니다' (Returns the current time). It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero waste, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.
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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on return format or behavioral context. Without annotations or output schema, it doesn't fully prepare an agent for invocation, though it's sufficient for basic understanding.
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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for this scenario is 4, as the description appropriately focuses on the tool's function without redundant parameter information.
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: '현재 시간을 반환합니다' (Returns the current time). This specifies the verb (returns) and resource (current time), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'echo' or 'search_youth_activities', which prevents a perfect 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_facility_group_list' or 'get_sido_list'. The user must infer usage based solely on the tool name and description.
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:

[![mcp-test MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/hyunhoonj/mcp-test/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/hyunhoonj/mcp-test)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-test MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/hyunhoonj/mcp-test/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/hyunhoonj/mcp-test)

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/hyunhoonj/mcp-test'

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