Pathfinder MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: health_check, compact_context, save_research, start_research, start_plan, save_plan, and implement_phase each target different phases or actions in a workflow. However, save_research and save_plan could be slightly confused as both involve saving content, but their descriptions clarify they handle different types of data (research findings vs. implementation plans).
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming follows a consistent verb_noun pattern throughout (e.g., compact_context, health_check, implement_phase, save_plan, save_research, start_plan, start_research), which is predictable and readable. There are no deviations in style or convention, making it easy for agents to understand the action each tool performs.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the count is well-scoped for a server focused on managing research and implementation workflows. Each tool appears to earn its place by covering distinct steps in the process, from starting research to executing phases, without being overly sparse or bloated.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers key phases like research, planning, and implementation, but there are notable gaps. For example, there are no tools for updating or deleting saved plans or research, and operations like reviewing or listing existing sessions are missing. This could lead to dead ends for agents trying to manage ongoing work comprehensively.
Average 3.2/5 across 7 of 7 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 saves findings but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this overwrites existing data, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a mutation tool with zero 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another listing parameters. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, though the parameter section could be more integrated. There's minimal waste, but it could be slightly more 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 the tool has an output schema (which handles return values) and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters. However, for a mutation tool with 2 parameters and 0% schema coverage, it should provide more context on behavior and usage compared to siblings. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists both parameters ('session_id' and 'findings') with brief explanations, but doesn't add meaningful semantics like format expectations, constraints, or examples. The description partially documents the parameters but doesn't fully compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 ('save') and resource ('research findings') with the destination ('to the session'). It's specific about what the tool does but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'save_plan' or 'start_research' which might handle similar resources.
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 like 'save_plan' or 'start_research'. It mentions the session context but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools.
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 mentions the tool checks health and returns status, but doesn't specify what 'status' includes (e.g., uptime, metrics, errors), whether it's a read-only operation, or any side effects like logging or performance impact. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with a single sentence ('Check server health and return status.'), which efficiently states the core purpose without unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured by elaborating on what 'health' means, but it earns high marks for brevity and clarity.
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 has no parameters, an output schema exists (which should cover return values), and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks depth on behavioral aspects like what 'health' entails or usage context. For a simple health check tool, it's passable but could be more informative to fully guide an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly doesn't mention any. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.
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 states the tool's purpose ('Check server health and return status'), which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('Check') and resource ('server health'), but doesn't distinguish it from potential sibling tools like 'compact_context' or 'save_plan'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what 'health' entails.
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 doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with sibling tools like 'start_plan' or 'save_research', there's no indication of how this tool fits into workflows. It's a basic statement 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool starts a research session but doesn't explain what that entails (e.g., does it create resources, require authentication, have side effects, or return a session object?). This is inadequate for a tool that likely initiates a stateful process.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are brief but clear, with no wasted words. It could be slightly more structured but is efficient overall.
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 likely initiates a research workflow (implied by sibling tools), no annotations, and an output schema exists (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on behavioral traits and integration with other tools, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's role.
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 adds parameter semantics beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'task_description' describes the research task and 'session_id' is optional and auto-generated if not provided. However, with 0% schema description coverage, this only partially compensates for the two parameters, leaving details like format constraints unexplained.
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 ('Start a new research session') and the resource ('research session'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'start_plan' or 'save_research' which appear related to the same workflow, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 like 'start_plan' or 'save_research'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical workflow context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal 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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions validation of the plan format, which is a useful behavioral trait, but fails to cover critical aspects: whether this is a read-only or write operation (implied write from 'save'), what happens on success/failure (e.g., error messages, storage location), permissions required, or side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and validation details, followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second specifies validation, and the args section clarifies parameters. Minor improvement could come from integrating parameter details more seamlessly, but overall it's efficient with zero waste.
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 has an output schema (which likely covers return values), no annotations, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately but lacks behavioral details (e.g., error handling, side effects) and usage guidelines. For a save operation with validation, more context on outcomes and constraints would enhance completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context for both parameters beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'session_id' is a Session ID and 'plan_content' is Plan content in Cursor plan format, clarifying their roles in the saving process. However, it doesn't detail format specifics (e.g., what constitutes a valid session_id or the exact structure of Cursor plan format), keeping it from a perfect score.
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: 'Save implementation plan' with the specific action of validating that the plan follows the Cursor plan format with YAML frontmatter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'start_plan' (which likely initiates planning) and 'implement_phase' (which likely executes phases). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'save_research' (which might save research data), leaving some sibling differentiation incomplete.
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., whether a plan must be started first), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'start_plan' or 'save_research'. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Execute[s] an implementation phase,' implying a mutation or action, but doesn't clarify what 'execute' entails—whether it's a read-only simulation, a destructive change, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like rate limits. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence and parameter details in a structured 'Args:' section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient 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 complexity (involving plan execution with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, leaving gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'session_id' is a 'Session ID' and 'phase_number' is a 'Specific phase to execute (defaults to next uncompleted),' clarifying the purpose and default behavior of parameters that the schema only defines as string/integer/null types.
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 with a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('an implementation phase from the plan'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'start_plan' or 'save_plan', which might involve similar plan-related operations.
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., whether a plan must exist first), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like 'start_plan' or 'save_plan', leaving the agent to infer 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 compresses context into 'summary artifacts,' implying a read/write operation that transforms data, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's destructive, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what 'summary artifacts' entail. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies session context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by usage guidelines and parameter info. There's no wasted text, and it's structured clearly with bullet points for Args. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the Args into a single sentence, but it's efficient overall.
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 complexity (compression operation), no annotations, and an output schema exists (which should cover return values), the description is minimally complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks details on behavioral aspects and parameter nuances. For a context-manipulation tool, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement.
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 adds minimal parameter semantics: it lists 'session_id: Session ID' under Args, which matches the single parameter in the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by explaining format, constraints, or examples. However, since there's only one parameter and it's straightforward, the baseline is met but not exceeded.
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: 'Compress session context into summary artifacts.' It specifies the verb ('compress') and resource ('session context'), and distinguishes it from siblings like health_check or save_plan. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., implement_phase might also process context), so it's not a perfect 5.
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 provides clear usage guidance: 'Use when context utilization exceeds 60%'—this gives a specific threshold for when to invoke the tool. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for an AI agent to decide when 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a file (plan.md template) and has a prerequisite (research completion), but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or what 'transition' entails behaviorally. It doesn't contradict annotations, but offers limited behavioral insight.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by key details and parameter info. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and well-structured.
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 moderate complexity (phase transition with a prerequisite), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and parameter semantics, but could benefit from more behavioral details, though the output schema reduces the need to explain return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining that 'session_id' is a 'Session ID', though this is minimal. With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, the baseline is high, and the description compensates adequately by clarifying the parameter's role.
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: 'Transition from research to plan phase' and 'Creates plan.md template'. It specifies both the action (transition/creates) and the resource (plan.md template), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'save_plan' or 'start_research'.
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 provides clear context for usage: 'Requires research to be complete' indicates a prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives among siblings, such as when to use 'save_plan' instead.
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:

[![pathfinder-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jamesctucker/pathfinder-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jamesctucker/pathfinder-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![pathfinder-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jamesctucker/pathfinder-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jamesctucker/pathfinder-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/jamesctucker/pathfinder-mcp'

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