sailfishos-mcp

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

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: metadata injection, feature addition, building, cleaning, project creation, deployment, guidelines retrieval, pitfalls listing, and snippet provision. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'sailfish_verb_noun' pattern, using snake_case throughout. This uniformity enhances readability and predictability, with no deviations in naming style across the set.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped for SailfishOS development, covering key lifecycle stages from project creation to deployment, along with supportive utilities like guidelines and snippets. Each tool earns its place without bloat.
Completeness4/5
The toolset provides strong coverage of core development workflows, including project setup, building, and deployment. Minor gaps exist, such as the lack of tools for testing or debugging, but agents can likely work around these with existing tools.
Average 3.2/5 across 9 of 9 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
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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 mentions the output (RPM package) but lacks critical behavioral details: whether it's idempotent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., modifies project files), typical runtime, or error handling. For a build tool with no 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 with zero waste—it directly states the action, tool used, and output. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the complexity.
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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the build entails (e.g., compilation steps), success/failure indicators, or output details beyond 'RPM package'. For a build tool with 4 parameters, 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 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying the build process, which is already covered by the tool's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 action ('Build') and resource ('SailfishOS project'), specifying it uses the sfdk CLI and produces an RPM package. It distinguishes from siblings like 'sailfish_clean' or 'sailfish_deploy' by focusing on compilation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'sailfish_create_project' is distinct, but not called out).
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., after creating a project), when not to use it (e.g., if the project is already built), or refer to sibling tools like 'sailfish_clean' for resetting builds. Usage is implied but not stated.
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. It discloses the command to run but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't mention that this is a destructive operation (removes files), requires prior project setup, or has no output schema. The description is minimal, offering little beyond the command syntax.
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, direct sentence with zero waste—it states exactly what the tool does without fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple command-execution tool and front-loaded with the essential action.
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 (a destructive build cleanup) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'clean' entails (e.g., removing build files), potential side effects, or error conditions. For a tool with behavioral implications, more context is needed beyond the command string.
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 parameter 'projectDir' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the command runs inside a build directory, which the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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 ('Run') and the specific command to execute, making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on cleaning build artifacts rather than building, deploying, or creating projects. However, it doesn't explicitly name the resource being cleaned (e.g., 'clean build artifacts'), leaving some ambiguity.
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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage in a build directory context but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., after a build) or compare it to siblings like sailfish_build. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the command 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. It states the tool performs a deployment, implying a write operation that modifies the target device/emulator, but lacks details on permissions required, potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing installations), error conditions, or output behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and target, 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.
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 (a deployment operation with potential side effects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not cover critical aspects like success/failure outcomes, error handling, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., requiring a prior build). This leaves the agent with incomplete context for safe and 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 both parameters ('projectDir' and 'device'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or typical usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('Deploy') and the target ('an already-built RPM to a connected device or emulator'), specifying the method ('via sfdk'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'sailfish_build' (which builds) and 'sailfish_create_project' (which creates), but does not explicitly contrast with them in the description.
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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that an RPM must be built first using 'sailfish_build'), nor does it specify scenarios where deployment might fail or should be avoided.
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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'curated' guidelines, suggesting authoritative content, but doesn't disclose format, length, source, or whether it's read-only (implied by 'Return'). For a tool with no annotations, this lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or output characteristics.
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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Return curated SailfishOS UI/UX and technical guidelines for a given topic') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It doesn't explain what 'curated' entails, output format, or behavioral traits like error handling. For a simple retrieval tool, it's passable but could better address gaps from missing annotations.
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 parameter 'topic' fully documented in the schema including enum values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying topic-based retrieval, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles most documentation 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 action ('Return curated... guidelines') and resource ('SailfishOS UI/UX and technical guidelines') with a specific scope ('for a given topic'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on guidelines retrieval rather than project management or code generation tasks, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'sailfish_pitfalls' which might also provide guidance.
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, context for selecting topics, or differentiate from sibling tools like 'sailfish_pitfalls' that might offer related advice. Usage is implied only by the topic parameter, with no explicit when/when-not instructions.
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 lists pitfalls, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like response format, pagination, error handling, or performance. For a tool with 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, 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.
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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage guidelines, and output expectations. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it falls short of being fully 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?
The description mentions 'specific SailfishOS development area', which aligns with the 'area' parameter in the schema. With 100% schema description coverage and a single parameter well-documented in the schema (including enum values and default), the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It provides basic context but no additional details on parameter usage or semantics.
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: 'List common mistakes and anti-patterns for a specific SailfishOS development area.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('common mistakes and anti-patterns'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sailfish_guidelines' which might have overlapping content. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'sailfish_guidelines' or 'sailfish_snippet'. Usage is implied through the parameter 'area', but no explicit context or alternatives are provided.
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 a snippet but doesn't describe output format, potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.
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 front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words and directly communicates the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output format, error handling, and integration with sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be beneficial for 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%, with clear enum values for 'pattern' and 'language'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it mentions 'SailfishOS pattern' and 'code snippet' but doesn't elaborate on parameter meanings or usage examples. With high schema coverage, 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: 'Return a ready-to-use code snippet for a common SailfishOS pattern.' It specifies the verb ('Return') and resource ('code snippet') with context ('SailfishOS pattern'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'sailfish_guidelines' or 'sailfish_pitfalls', which might provide similar educational content.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for generating code snippets, but it doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to siblings such as 'sailfish_create_project' or 'sailfish_build' in a development workflow.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool creates files ('structure, RPM spec, and QML scaffolding') which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose important behaviors like whether it overwrites existing directories, requires specific permissions, has side effects on the system, or what happens on failure. For a tool that creates multiple files with 14 parameters, 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 front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Bootstrap' establishes the action, 'SailfishOS application project' specifies the target, and 'correct structure, RPM spec, and QML scaffolding' enumerates the key outputs without 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 complex tool with 14 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks crucial context about behavioral traits, error handling, and practical usage scenarios. The 100% schema coverage helps, but the description doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations explaining the tool's operational characteristics.
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 14 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'correct structure' which relates to the template parameter, but doesn't provide additional context about template differences or parameter interactions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.
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?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Bootstrap a new SailfishOS application project') and the resources created ('correct structure, RPM spec, and QML scaffolding'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sailfish_build or sailfish_deploy by focusing on initial project creation rather than building, deploying, or adding metadata.
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., needing SailfishOS SDK installed), when to use sailfish_add_chum_metadata instead for existing projects, or when other sibling tools like sailfish_add_feature might be more appropriate. Usage context is implied but not explicit.
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 the action 'Add' but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether this modifies project files irreversibly, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or provides any output/confirmation. This is inadequate for a mutation 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 that front-loads the core purpose with examples, with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.
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 (adding features to a project, implying mutation) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens after invocation, potential errors, or the impact on the project, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.
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 three parameters (projectDir, feature, name) with descriptions and an enum for 'feature'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Add' and the resource 'new feature' to an 'existing SailfishOS project', with specific examples (page, cover, service, D-Bus interface, etc.) that distinguish it from siblings like sailfish_create_project (which creates new projects) or sailfish_build (which builds projects).
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?
The description specifies 'to an existing SailfishOS project', providing clear context for when to use this tool (after project creation). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as sailfish_create_project for new projects instead.
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 burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: it reads from multiple sources (spec file, git, local directory), allows overrides, appends metadata as the last paragraph of %description, and wraps it in conditional macros. It doesn't mention error handling, permissions needed, or side effects on the spec file.
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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first explains the core functionality and data sources, the second details the output format and conditional wrapping. Every sentence adds essential information with zero waste.
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?
For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool does and how it behaves. It explains the transformation process and output format, though it doesn't describe what happens on success/failure or provide examples of the injected metadata block.
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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds context about auto-detection mechanisms (git config, git remote + icons directory) and the purpose of categories, but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Inject SailfishOS:Chum metadata into the RPM spec'), the resource ('existing project'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on metadata injection rather than building, deploying, or creating projects. It provides concrete details about what data is read and how it's formatted.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when adding Chum metadata to an existing SailfishOS project, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sailfish_create_project' for new projects or 'sailfish_build' for compilation. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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:

[![sailfishos-skills MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ilpianista/sailfishos-skills/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ilpianista/sailfishos-skills)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![sailfishos-skills MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ilpianista/sailfishos-skills/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ilpianista/sailfishos-skills)

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/ilpianista/sailfishos-skills'

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