blok-berichtsheft

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation: reading a week, adding an activity, setting day status, listing departments, setting department, and setting week remarks. There is no functional overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_week, add_activity, set_day_status), making the API intuitive and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for managing a training log (Berichtsheft). Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy or deficiency.
Completeness4/5
The core workflow (read week, add activity, set status/department/remarks) is covered. However, there is no explicit update or delete operation for activities, which could be a minor gap.
Average 3.9/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Set' indicating mutation but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing remarks, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The term 'free-text' suggests no validation but is minimal.
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?
Single sentence, no unnecessary words. Front-loads the purpose and constraints, earning its place efficiently.
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 simple setter tool with no output schema and two parameters, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does and the meaning of parameters. However, it could mention the expected return (e.g., success status) and any prerequisites.
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 50% (only date described). The description adds context by calling the text 'free-text remarks' and clarifying that the date should be for the containing week. However, it does not explain the text parameter's length limits or formatting.
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 identifies the verb 'Set', the resource 'free-text remarks for the week', and the context 'containing the given date'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_week (read) and set_day_status (day-level) by specifying week-level remarks.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for writing remarks, but it does not mention when not to use it or provide direct comparisons with sibling tools like add_activity or set_day_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It reveals that empty rows are reused and that location/presence can be optionally set. However, it does not explain what happens if the date already has a full row, whether the activity is appended, or any side effects (e.g., overwriting existing data). More detail on mutation behavior and error states would improve 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?
Three clear, front-loaded sentences: purpose, key behavior (row reuse), and additional capabilities. No redundant words or filler. Every sentence serves a purpose.
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?
With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or confirms on success. It does not mention return values, error handling, or side effects beyond adding an entry. For a simple add operation, this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about confirmation or error states. A brief note on expected response (e.g., 'Returns the created activity entry ID') would make it 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about row reuse and optional location/presence setting, but does not enhance understanding of individual parameters (e.g., the format of 'hours' or the meaning of enum values) beyond what the schema already provides. The added value is marginal.
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 tool's action: 'Add a new Berichtsheft activity entry for a specific day.' It also explains row reuse, making it distinct from sibling tools like get_week (read-only) and set_day_status (status change). The verb 'add' plus specific resource 'activity entry' leaves no ambiguity.
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 context (adding activity entries) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_day_status or set_department. For instance, it doesn't clarify that add_activity is for daily tasks while set_day_status handles overall attendance. The mention of optionally setting location/presence could cause confusion with set_day_status.
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 bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It fails to disclose whether the tool overwrites existing status, if it creates a day entry if missing, or what side effects occur (e.g., impact on existing activities). This leaves an agent uncertain about safe invocation.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object, containing no extraneous information. Every word earns its place.
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 and high schema coverage, the description is adequate for basic understanding. However, missing details on preconditions (e.g., does the day need to exist?) and return values (no output schema) make it incomplete for robust 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters are well-documented in the input schema. The description paraphrases the schema ('Set the location and/or presence status') without adding new meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.
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 action ('Set'), the resource ('location and/or presence status for a specific day in the Berichtsheft'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from adding an activity, which is a sibling tool name. This makes the purpose specific and avoids confusion.
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 includes a clear exclusion ('without adding an activity'), which directly contrasts with the sibling 'add_activity'. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus other siblings like 'set_department' or 'set_week_remarks', leaving some ambiguity.
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, the description must reveal behavioral traits; it clearly states the tool reads data and details the returned fields (location, presence, activities, week remarks). Implicitly a read-only operation is indicated by 'Read'.
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 sentence concisely states the action, resource, and returned data with no wasted words. Front-loaded with 'Read' aligns with best practices.
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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (daily location, presence, activities, week remarks). It lacks details on error handling or edge cases but is sufficient for its simplicity.
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% coverage for the single 'date' parameter with a clear description. The tool description does not add new semantics beyond reiterating the date's role, so baseline score applies.
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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and clearly identifies the resource as 'Berichtsheft (training log) entries for the week'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like add_activity or set_day_status, which are mutation-oriented.
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 verb 'Read' conveys its retrieval purpose, and sibling tool names imply different actions, but no explicit guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 reveals the tool sets a field for the whole week, but does not mention overwrite behavior, permissions, idempotency, or return value. This leaves important behavioral gaps.
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?
Two sentences with no redundancy. First sets purpose, second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place.
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 no output schema, no annotations, and moderate schema coverage, the description covers purpose and usage but lacks details on behavior when the field already exists, error conditions, and response format. Adequate but with notable gaps.
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 50% (only date has a description). The description adds context for department by referencing list_departments and user confirmation, but does not specify format or accepted values beyond 'code'. For a 2-param tool, the description partially compensates but lacks full semantic clarity.
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 tool sets the 'Abteilung/Sparte' field for a week. The verb 'Set' and resource 'field for the week containing the given date' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_departments, get_week, and set_week_remarks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs to call list_departments first and confirm the code with the user, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-guess guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. While it mentions the source ('same autocomplete list BLok itself offers'), it does not state that the operation is read-only or any side effects. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not thorough.
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?
Two sentences with zero wasted words. Every part contributes meaning: purpose, source, and usage guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool, the description is complete: it explains what it returns, why it exists, and how to use it with siblings. No output schema needed.
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%, with one parameter 'date' already described in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter information beyond what the schema provides, warranting a baseline score.
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 uses a specific verb 'list' and clearly identifies the resource as 'valid "Abteilung/Sparte" codes for this account'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning its use with set_department and add_activity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to call this tool and ask the user before using set_department or add_activity, and warns against guessing. Provides clear context for usage.
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:

[![blok-berichtsheft-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/j551n-ncloud/blok-berichtsheft-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/j551n-ncloud/blok-berichtsheft-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![blok-berichtsheft-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/j551n-ncloud/blok-berichtsheft-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/j551n-ncloud/blok-berichtsheft-mcp)

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/j551n-ncloud/blok-berichtsheft-mcp'

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