BackCrew GorillaDesk MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool serves a clearly distinct purpose: company info, user listing, individual user, customer listing, create/update customer, adding notes, and listing phone types. No overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., get_company, list_users, create_customer), making them predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools covering company, users, customers, notes, and phone types, the count is well-scoped for a field service management integration without being excessive or sparse.
Completeness3/5
Basic CRUD for customers is present (create, update, list) but missing get_customer and delete_customer. User management is read-only. Notes can be added but not listed. Minor gaps affect completeness.
Average 3.3/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 7 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
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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions the HTTP method (PUT), which implies idempotence, but doesn't clarify what happens if the customer doesn't exist, whether it's a partial update, or any side effects. No auth or rate limit info.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief, only one sentence. While it is front-loaded, it omits critical information. It could be expanded without losing structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks guidance on required parameters' meaning, return behavior, and error conditions. This tool requires much more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 13%, meaning 7 out of 8 parameters lack description. The tool description adds no parameter information whatsoever, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema, which is inadequate.
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 'Update', the resource 'customer', and specifies it is for existing customers. It also shows the HTTP mapping, which clarifies the operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_customer.
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, no prerequisites, and no conditions for usage. It is implied only by the tool name and verb.
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, the description carries full burden but only states the action and HTTP mapping. It does not disclose whether permissions are required, what side effects occur (e.g., creation of related records), or the response format. Critical behavioral traits are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences with no fluff, but it is under-informative for a tool with 8 parameters and nested objects. It could be more structured (e.g., listing prerequisites or output) without becoming verbose.
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 (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It omits what the tool returns, validation rules, and any distinctions from sibling tools beyond the action.
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 only 13%, yet the description adds negligible parameter-level meaning beyond noting that location is part of the creation. For the 8 parameters, only location is hinted at; no details on required fields, email, phones, status, etc., are provided.
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 (Create), the resource (customer), and includes a specific detail (with a service location) that distinguishes it from update/delete operations. The explicit mapping to POST /customers further clarifies the API endpoint.
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 update_customer or add_customer_note. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid location or that this tool is for new customers only.
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 it's a GET endpoint (read-only), but lacks details on pagination, authentication, or error handling. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 is concise and includes resource and endpoint. Could be expanded slightly (e.g., mention pagination) without becoming verbose.
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?
For a simple list tool with 2 params and no output schema, description covers purpose but omits output format, pagination semantics, and potential error states. Minimum viable for basic use.
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 50% (only limit has description); description does not add any parameter meaning. It neither explains offset nor clarifies pagination behavior, leaving gaps that the schema partially fills.
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 it lists users (admins and technicians) and maps to GET /users. Distinguishes from siblings like get_user (single) and list_customers (customers).
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_user for single user, list_customers for customers). Implied by sibling names but not explicit.
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, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic function (add note, notify users) but does not reveal whether the note appends or replaces, notification guarantees, rate limits, or any destructive implications. The description 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?
Two concise sentences. The first covers the primary purpose and optional behavior; the second provides the API mapping. No redundant information.
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 and low schema coverage, the description should provide more context. It lacks details on return values, error handling, and prerequisite conditions. However, the tool is relatively simple, so the description meets a minimum viable level.
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 coverage is low (33%): only 'notify_user_ids' has a description. The description mentions optional notification, which corresponds to that parameter, but it does not clarify the format of 'content' or the source of 'customer_id'. No additional parameter semantics are provided beyond the schema.
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 explicitly states the action (add a note), the resource (customer timeline), and maps to the REST endpoint. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which handle companies, users, and customer CRUD, not notes.
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 the tool is for adding a note and optionally notifying users, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it over possible alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions for using this tool.
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 must carry the full burden. It only states 'List' and maps to a GET endpoint, implying read-only, but fails to disclose any potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior when no records exist.
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, front-loaded sentence with an endpoint reference, containing no extraneous text. However, it could be slightly more informative while still being concise.
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?
For a simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description minimally covers the operation. It lacks details on return format, pagination behavior, or ordering, leaving some gaps for an agent.
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 'limit' has a description in schema). The tool description adds no additional parameter explanation beyond what the schema already provides, and does not compensate for the missing 'offset' description.
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 lists phone type labels with examples, and explicitly maps to a GET endpoint, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from unrelated sibling tools.
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 purpose is implied (listing phone types), but no context is given for when one might need this list or any prerequisites.
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 must fully disclose behavior. It only states that the tool retrieves info and maps to GET /company, lacking details about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or response structure. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.
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 concise and front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no unnecessary verbosity.
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 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete for a simple read operation. However, it could be improved by specifying the response format (e.g., single object or list) or any potential constraints (e.g., connected company must be authenticated).
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 input schema has no parameters. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds value by listing the fields returned, but since there are no parameters, there is no additional parameter meaning needed.
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 retrieves business info for the connected company and lists specific fields (name, contact details, address, timezone, office hours). It also includes the HTTP method mapping, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like list_users or get_user. The description does not mention any alternatives or exclusions, 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description notes that the tool maps to an HTTP GET, implying read-only and idempotent behavior. However, with no annotations provided, it does not clarify other behavioral traits such as scope (all customers? per context?), rate limits, or side effects. The GET mapping provides a baseline level of 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?
The description is two sentences long with no redundant or extraneous information. Every word serves a purpose: the verb, resource, core capabilities, and endpoint mapping are clearly and efficiently communicated.
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?
Despite 11 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description omits important details such as pagination behavior, default order, response structure, error handling, and when to use this over sibling tools (e.g., list_users). The brevity leaves significant gaps for an agent to safely 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?
The description provides a high-level overview of filtering, sorting, and pagination, but the input schema already covers 64% of parameters with descriptions. The description does not add meaning for undocumented parameters (e.g., include, account_number, status) beyond the schema's baseline. It does not fully compensate for the remaining 36% coverage gap.
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 'List' with 'customers' as the resource, directly indicating the tool's function. It adds optional capabilities (filtering, sorting, pagination) and explicitly maps to the REST endpoint 'GET /customers', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_customer or update_customer.
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 for listing customers with controls, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_user for a single customer). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name and siblings.
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 carries full burden. It discloses the return fields and HTTP method, indicating a read operation. However, it omits details like authentication requirements, error conditions, or rate limits. The return value info adds value beyond the schema.
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 efficiently conveys purpose and endpoint, with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and every word serves a purpose.
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 simple nature of the tool (single required parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, return fields, and endpoint. It lacks guidance on potential error scenarios or when to use vs siblings, but overall is sufficient for basic usage.
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?
The schema has one required parameter (user_id) with no description, and the tool description does not add any semantic meaning about the parameter (e.g., format, allowed values, or usage context). Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter under-specified.
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 a single user's profile with specific fields (name, role, license, contact info) and maps to a REST endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_users (multiple users) and get_company (different entity).
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 use when needing a single user's details but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over list_users or when to avoid it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
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:

[![backcrew-mcp-gorilladesk MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jayson-svg/backcrew-mcp-gorilladesk/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jayson-svg/backcrew-mcp-gorilladesk)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![backcrew-mcp-gorilladesk MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jayson-svg/backcrew-mcp-gorilladesk/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jayson-svg/backcrew-mcp-gorilladesk)

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/jayson-svg/backcrew-mcp-gorilladesk'

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