Skip to main content
Glama
janeksm

mcp-digger

by janeksm
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.1.3

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: dig_init creates a starter config, while dig_status validates connectivity and configuration. There is no overlap.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools consistently use the 'dig_' prefix and verb_noun pattern (init, status) in snake_case, making the naming predictable.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for a tool named 'digger' that presumably should provide git analysis capabilities. The description hints at more tools after configuration, but currently only init and status are defined.

    Completeness2/5

    The server lacks core digging functionality (e.g., analyzing commits, blame, changes). It only covers initialization and health-check, leaving a major gap in the expected tool surface.

  • Average 4.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 13 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is failing

  • 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

  • Behavior3/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds minor context about what is being tested (auth, network), but does not go beyond what annotations imply. No contradictions.

    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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and no unnecessary information. Every sentence adds value.

    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?

    Given no parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, usage scenarios, and limitations. Complete for a simple health-check tool.

    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?

    No parameters exist, so the description cannot add parameter semantics. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description is sufficient.

    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 purpose: a health-check that validates configuration and tests git connectivity. It distinguishes from the sibling 'dig_init' by focusing on verification and diagnosis before actual digging.

    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?

    Explicitly says to call for verifying setup, diagnosing auth/network issues, or confirming repos are reachable. Implicitly suggests use before other tools, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

    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?

    Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds that the tool is only available when no config exists, which clarifies the idempotency constraint—running it multiple times may cause errors. This goes beyond annotations by specifying availability condition and required restart.

    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 short sentences with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the main action and then provides usage constraints and follow-up steps. Every sentence adds value.

    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 no output schema and no parameters, the description covers the init process, availability condition, and required post-step. It does not mention error cases or output (e.g., what file is created), but given the simplicity, it is nearly complete.

    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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool does without needing param details.

    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?

    Description clearly states the tool bootstraps mcp-digger by creating a starter config file. It specifies the action (create) and the resource (starter config file). The sibling tool 'dig_status' likely checks status, so this distinguishes initialization from status checking.

    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?

    Explicitly states 'Only available when no config exists', setting clear usage condition. Also provides post-run instructions (edit template, restart server). Could mention that dig_status is for checking status but not necessary for a one-time setup tool.

    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-digger MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-digger 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/janeksm/mcp-digger'

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