Skip to main content
Glama
igorgrv1

@igorromero/ciphersuite-mcp

by igorgrv1
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.0.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools are perfectly distinct: one encrypts, the other decrypts. There is no overlap or potential for confusion between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow the same verb_noun pattern: encrypt_message and decrypt_message. Naming is consistent and intuitive.

    Tool Count4/5

    At only 2 tools, the server is minimal, but the domain of encryption/decryption inherently requires exactly these two operations. The count is slightly under the typical 3-15 range but perfectly appropriate for its narrow scope.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool surface covers the full encryption/decryption lifecycle with no missing operations. For a cipher suite, encrypt and decrypt are the only necessary functions.

  • Average 3.3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 2 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 provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It does not mention that encryption is irreversible (without the key), the output format, or any side effects. The schema hints at key derivation, but the description itself adds no behavioral context.

    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 concise and front-loaded, but it essentially restates the tool name without adding operational detail. While not verbose, it doesn't earn its place beyond the name—acceptable but minimal.

    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?

    Despite an output schema existing, the description is too sparse for an encryption operation. It lacks information about when encryption is appropriate, the nature of the output, or any warnings. The agent is left to infer everything from the schema and sibling naming, which is insufficient for correct invocation in varied contexts.

    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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents 'message' and 'encryptionKey' with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter information, but the baseline is 3 given 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 action ('Encrypt a message') with a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'decrypt_message' by focusing on encryption, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

    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 decrypt_message or any other context. There is no mention of prerequisites, security considerations, or typical use cases.

    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 must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or what happens on failure (e.g., wrong key). The only behavioral detail is the requirement for the same passphrase, which partially addresses input constraints but not the tool's overall safety profile. 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?

    A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the verb, object, and connection to the sibling tool efficiently, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

    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?

    Given the tool's simplicity, full parameter coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It correctly identifies the key requirement and relationship to encrypt_message. However, lacking behavioral disclosure (e.g., error handling, purity) means it is not fully complete for an agent deciding to invoke it safely.

    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%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds minimal semantic value beyond mentioning the key matches encrypt_message, which mirrors what the schema already states. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage but does not provide additional meaning.

    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?

    States a specific verb ('Decrypt') and resource ('a message'), and explicitly ties it to the encrypt_message tool, which differentiates it from the sibling. It is not a tautology; it names the exact operation and its counterpart.

    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?

    Clearly implies usage context by referencing encrypt_message, indicating it is the decryption counterpart. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools beyond the implicit sibling relationship. This is clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

    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

AI-MCP-from-scratch MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

AI-MCP-from-scratch MCP server

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/igorgrv1/AI-MCP-from-scratch'

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