Skip to main content
Glama
intounknown

MCP-Bocha

by intounknown
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The single tool 'mcp-bocha_search' has a clear and distinct purpose of searching the web for information, leaving no room for confusion or misselection.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The naming is perfectly consistent as there is only one tool. It follows a clear verb_noun pattern ('search' as the verb and implied 'web' as the noun), and with no other tools to compare against, there is no inconsistency in naming conventions.

    Tool Count2/5

    A single tool is too few for most server purposes, as it typically feels thin and limits functionality. While a search tool can be useful, the server's scope appears narrow with only one operation, which may not cover the full domain of web search or related tasks adequately.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for a web search domain. It only provides a search function without any complementary tools for refining results, accessing cached pages, or handling different search types (e.g., images, news). This creates significant gaps that could lead to agent failures in more complex tasks.

  • Average 2.1/5 across 1 of 1 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 Apache 2.0.

  • 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

  • Behavior1/5

    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 action ('Search the web for information') without revealing any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, output format, pagination, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema.

    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 extremely concise at 4 words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded and to the point, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying the core action, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness1/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the complexity (6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects. For a search tool with multiple filtering options, this minimal description leaves critical gaps in understanding how to effectively use it.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters1/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 6 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what parameters like 'count', 'freshness', or 'summary' do, nor does it clarify the purpose of arrays like 'include' and 'exclude'. With 0% coverage, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose3/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description 'Search the web for information' clearly states the verb ('Search') and resource ('the web'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's vague about what kind of information is searched (e.g., general web pages, specific content types) and doesn't differentiate from siblings (though none exist). It's not tautological but lacks specificity beyond basic action.

    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, prerequisites, or constraints. It simply states what it does without context for application. Since there are no sibling tools, this is less critical, but it still lacks any usage context or 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

mcp-bocha MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-bocha 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/intounknown/mcp-bocha'

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