Skip to main content
Glama
jayasukuv11-beep

agenthelm

by jayasukuv11-beep
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
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 on the Project Brain: retrieval of context, submission of new knowledge, and querying history. There is no overlap in purpose.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (get_context, propose_knowledge, get_history). The repetition of 'get' is acceptable as it indicates retrieval operations.

    Tool Count4/5

    With only 3 tools, the server is scoped for a focused knowledge management function. While minimal, each tool serves a clear purpose and the count is appropriate for the domain.

    Completeness3/5

    The tools cover retrieval, submission, and history, but lack direct update or delete operations for knowledge items. Updates could be handled via new proposals, but that introduces overhead and gaps.

  • Average 3.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 47 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 passing

  • 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?

    No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the proposal enters a validation queue before being compiled, indicating a delay. However, it omits details about idempotency, permissions, or error handling, leaving 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?

    The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no redundant or extraneous information.

    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 has 6 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description adequately covers the submission process and queueing. It could optionally mention what the agent might expect as a response (e.g., confirmation or ID).

    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%, with each parameter having a schema description. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

    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 verb 'submits' and the resource 'Knowledge Proposal', listing specific content types. It distinguishes from sibling tools (get_context, get_history) which are retrieval-oriented.

    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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_context or get_history. The description implies usage for submitting knowledge but does not clarify when not to use it or provide context for choosing among siblings.

    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 discloses that the tool retrieves history, diffs, blame, and show details, and what information can be reviewed (who, what files, conflicts, when). However, it does not mention any side effects, permission requirements, or constraints beyond the parameter requirements.

    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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence specifies the core action and resource, and the second adds valuable detail. No extraneous information or repetition.

    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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the primary use cases (history, diffs, blame, show) and the type of information available. It lacks details on output format, error handling, or behavior when required parameters are missing, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

    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 all parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description reiterates general capabilities (e.g., reviewing changes) but does not add new meaning to individual parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter semantics adequately.

    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 'Retrieves version history, diffs, blame, or show details for the Project Brain.' It uses specific verbs ('retrieves') and resources ('version history'), and lists distinct actions (log, show, diff, blame), effectively distinguishing it from siblings get_context and propose_knowledge.

    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 context on when to use the tool: 'Allows reviewing exactly who proposed what, what files changed, what conflicts occurred, and when.' It implies usage for historical review, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_context for current state.

    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 description must cover behavior. It mentions semantic selection and ranking, but lacks details on limitations, granularity of context, or performance characteristics. 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, front-loaded with action, then use cases. No wasted words.

    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?

    No output schema, but the description gives enough for a simple retrieval tool. Could mention return format or number of results, but not essential for basic usage.

    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?

    Schema coverage is 100% with a good parameter description. The description adds value by explaining the intent of semantic ranking, which complements the hint parameter.

    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 retrieves ranked context from Project Brain using semantic selection, with specific use cases. It distinguishes from siblings like propose_knowledge and get_history.

    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 lists when to use (starting a task, resolving design questions, looking up project standards). Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear.

    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

agenthelm MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

agenthelm 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/jayasukuv11-beep/agenthelm'

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