Skip to main content
Glama
igs-pochenkuo

SouthAsia MCP Tool

by igs-pochenkuo
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation4/5

    The two tools have distinct purposes: one greets by name and the other returns a generic greeting. While both involve greetings, the specific functionality differs enough to avoid confusion, though the overlap in greeting theme could cause minor ambiguity if not carefully read.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent naming pattern with 'mcp_' prefix and descriptive suffixes ('hello_name' and 'hello_world'). This uniformity makes it easy to predict and understand the tool set's structure.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels under-scoped for a general-purpose MCP server, as it lacks coverage for typical operations beyond basic greetings. This minimal count suggests limited utility for complex agent tasks.

    Completeness2/5

    Inferred as a demonstration or greeting server, the tool set is severely incomplete—it only offers greeting functions without any CRUD, data manipulation, or broader utility operations. This leaves obvious gaps for practical agent workflows.

  • Average 3.1/5 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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'greets you by name' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the greeting returns, if there are any side effects, or authentication requirements. The description is minimal and lacks 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.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple greeting tool with one parameter. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.

    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?

    For a simple greeting tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but doesn't provide usage context, behavioral details, or output information. Given the tool's simplicity, the description meets minimum viable standards but could be more 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?

    Schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'name' well-documented as 'Your name'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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: 'greets you by name' specifies the action (greeting) and resource (name). It distinguishes from sibling 'mcp_hello_world' by specifying personalized greeting vs generic greeting. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the sibling differentiation in the description text itself.

    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 sibling tool 'mcp_hello_world' or any context about when a personalized greeting is preferred over a generic one. The description simply states what it does without usage context.

    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 states the tool 'returns a greeting message', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotation coverage, 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, efficient sentence: 'A simple demonstration tool that returns a greeting message'. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.

    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 with full schema coverage, no output schema), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, making it minimally viable but not fully complete for effective agent 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?

    The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'random_string' documented as a 'Dummy parameter for no-parameter tools'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.

    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: 'returns a greeting message' with 'simple demonstration' providing context. It specifies the verb 'returns' and resource 'greeting message', making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'mcp_hello_name', which appears similar, keeping it from 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. It mentions 'simple demonstration' but doesn't specify contexts, exclusions, or compare to 'mcp_hello_name'. This lack of usage instructions leaves the agent without clear direction for tool selection.

    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

southasia_mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

southasia_mcp 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/igs-pochenkuo/southasia_mcp'

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