volta-mcp-server
Server Quality Checklist
- Disambiguation5/5
The tools have clearly distinct purposes with no functional overlap: one creates secure notes while the other consumes them. An agent can easily distinguish between generating a new URL versus retrieving and destroying an existing note.
Naming Consistency5/5Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (create_volta_note, read_volta_note), with identical resource naming ('volta_note') and parallel grammatical structure.
Tool Count4/5While two tools falls slightly below the typical optimal range, it is reasonable for this narrowly scoped one-time secret service where only creation and retrieval operations are relevant to the security model.
Completeness4/5The tools cover the essential lifecycle (create and read-once-destroy) for secure note sharing. Minor potential gaps include missing expiration configuration or metadata retrieval, though these may be intentionally excluded for security.
Average 4.5/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
See the tool scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
This repository includes a README.md file.
This repository includes a LICENSE file.
Latest release: v1.0.0
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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
- This server provides 2 tools. View schema
No known security issues or vulnerabilities reported.
This server has been verified by its author.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
Tool Scores
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excellently discloses critical behavioral traits: the destructive nature ('permanently destroys'), one-time access ('returned once'), and irreversibility ('cannot be recovered').
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three tightly constructed sentences with zero waste: first states the core action, second provides the usage trigger, and third explains the critical one-time behavioral constraint. Information is front-loaded effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite lacking annotations and an output schema, the description adequately covers the return value behavior ('note content is returned once') and compensates for missing safety annotations by explicitly describing the destruction. Could optionally note authentication requirements or error states.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a detailed example URL in the schema description. The description references the URL in context ('sends you a voltanotes.com URL') but does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verbs ('Reads' and 'destroys') with the resource ('Volta secure note') and clearly distinguishes from sibling tool create_volta_note by emphasizing consumption/destruction versus creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Call this when a user sends you a voltanotes.com URL containing sensitive information'), though it does not explicitly name the sibling tool as an alternative for creation workflows.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It successfully explains the critical one-time/self-destruct nature ('gone' after opening) and return value (one-time URL). Minor gap: doesn't mention expiration timeouts, rate limits, or specific return structure location.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three tightly constructed sentences with zero waste: sentence 1 states function+output, sentence 2 explains the usage pattern, sentence 3 provides examples. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema exists, the description adequately compensates by stating the tool 'returns a one-time URL'. For a single-parameter creation tool, this covers the essential missing output information. Could be improved by specifying URL expiration behavior or exact return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage with detailed technical description. The description adds semantic value by specifying what content belongs in the parameter ('generated passwords, private keys, sensitive output'), helping the agent map user intent to the 'content' field effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with specific verb 'Creates' + resource 'Volta secure note' and immediately distinguishes the core mechanism ('returns a one-time URL'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling 'read_volta_note' by establishing this as the creation/entry point.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use ('send sensitive information to a user'), describes the complete UX lifecycle ('open the link once, read it, and it's gone'), and provides concrete examples ('generated passwords, private keys'). This gives clear selection criteria against the read sibling.
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:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
How to claim the server?
If you are the author of the server, you simply need to authenticate using GitHub.
However, if the MCP server belongs to an organization, you need to first add glama.json to the root of your repository.
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
"maintainers": [
"your-github-username"
]
}Then, authenticate using GitHub.
Browse examples.
How to make a release?
A "release" on Glama is not the same as a GitHub release. To create a Glama release:
- Claim the server if you haven't already.
- Go to the Dockerfile admin page, configure the build spec, and click Deploy.
- Once the build test succeeds, click Make Release, enter a version, and publish.
This process allows Glama to run security checks on your server and enables users to deploy it.
How to add a LICENSE?
Please follow the instructions in the GitHub documentation.
Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear on the server after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
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.
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/iamredmh/volta-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server