Skip to main content
Glama
janakir2006

NitroStack Calculator MCP Server

by janakir2006
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct aspect of startup idea handling: difficulty estimation, pitch generation, and comprehensive validation. No functional overlap.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores: estimate_build_difficulty, generate_pitch_summary, validate_startup_idea.

    Tool Count5/5

    3 tools is perfectly scoped for a focused calculator/pitch/validation server, covering core tasks without excess or deficiency.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set covers essential actions: estimation, pitch generation, and validation. Minor gaps like saving or comparing ideas exist but are not critical for the server's stated purpose.

  • Average 3.2/5 across 3 of 3 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

  • 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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'generate a concise pitch summary', which implies a read-only text generation but gives no details on side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens if input is insufficient. Minimal transparency beyond the basic action.

    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 a single sentence with 12 words, highly concise with no waste. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.

    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 4 input parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't specify the output format (text or structured), length constraints, or how this tool differs from siblings. For a generation task, more contextual completeness is expected.

    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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not explain parameter relationships, constraints beyond minLength, or provide examples.

    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 generates a concise hackathon or startup pitch summary for an idea. It uses a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('pitch summary'), and the context 'hackathon or startup' adds specificity. While it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings, the sibling tools have distinct purposes (difficulty estimation and validation), making the differentiation implicit.

    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 vs alternatives. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references are given.

    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 provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose what kind of output is returned (e.g., score, category) or any behavioral traits like side effects or dependencies.

    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?

    Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose. Could be more structured but is concise and clear.

    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?

    No output schema, so description should explain return values. It does not. For a single required parameter tool, missing output details is a gap.

    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. Description lists the factors (software, hardware, etc.) which adds context, but does not explain parameters beyond what 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 tool estimates technical difficulty based on multiple factors (software, hardware, AI, regulation, team size, time, budget). It distinguishes from siblings 'generate_pitch_summary' and 'validate_startup_idea' which focus on other aspects.

    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 vs alternatives. It implies use for difficulty assessment, but lacks context for alternatives or when-not-to-use.

    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 bears full responsibility. It describes what the tool estimates but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it makes external API calls, requires authentication, or is read-only. The description lacks depth about side effects or limitations.

    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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the estimation aspects concisely. It is efficient but could benefit from slight restructuring or bullet points for clarity.

    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 (6 parameters, no output schema), the description does not specify the return value or format. It only lists input aspects, leaving the agent to guess the output structure, which is a significant gap.

    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 each parameter is described. The tool description adds overarching context about the estimation dimensions, but it does not provide new semantic detail for individual parameters beyond what the schema already offers.

    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 it validates a startup or hackathon idea by estimating multiple aspects (difficulty, competitors, APIs, monetization, risks, steps, patent search). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like estimate_build_difficulty (focuses only on difficulty) and generate_pitch_summary (focuses only on pitch summary).

    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 implies the tool is comprehensive by listing many estimation aspects, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings. However, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage for full validation rather than single-aspect tasks.

    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

idea-validator-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

idea-validator-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/janakir2006/idea-validator-mcp'

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