Skip to main content
Glama
jdtzmn

embecode

by jdtzmn
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools serve entirely distinct purposes: search_code performs queries over the codebase, while index_status reports on the index state. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection unambiguous.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both names use lowercase with underscores and are descriptive, but search_code follows verb_noun structure while index_status is noun_noun. Minor deviation from a strict verb-noun pattern, but still consistent in style.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a code search/indexing domain. However, the scope is narrow and the tools cover the essential query and status check, so the count is borderline but acceptable.

    Completeness3/5

    The tools enable searching and checking index status, but lack operations like triggering reindexing, managing index configuration, or retrieving raw file contents. These gaps may require external processes or additional functionality.

  • Average 4.5/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 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 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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently lists return fields, including conditional fields like current_file and progress that appear only when is_indexing=True. It also provides semantics (e.g., progress as a fraction 0-1) and notes the timestamp format. It does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, but the verb and nature of the tool imply this.

    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 front-loaded with the purpose statement, followed by a bulleted list of return fields. Each bullet adds distinct value, clarifying field names and conditional behavior. There is no fluff or repetition.

    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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It goes beyond the schema by explaining conditional fields and value formats, and it covers all relevant behavioral aspects for a status-checking 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?

    The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description appropriately does not attempt to explain parameter semantics, as there are none.

    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 starts with 'Get current index status,' which clearly identifies a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'search_code' by focusing on index health rather than code search.

    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?

    Usage is implied: call this when you need current index status. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the name.

    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?

    No annotations are provided, but the description discloses key behavioral traits: it returns 'concise chunk results' with specific fields (file_path, language, start_line, end_line, definitions, preview, and relevance score), and explains the default mode and return behavior. It does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., read-only), but 'search' inherently implies non-mutation, lending sufficient 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 well-structured with an Args/Returns format. Every sentence is informative: it states the purpose, enumerates parameters with defaults, and describes the return format. No redundant or filler content; it is appropriately sized for a tool with four parameters and multiple modes.

    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 the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameters, defaults, and return value structure (already partially provided via output schema, but description reinforces it). The presence of an output schema and explicit Returns section makes it complete for an agent to invoke correctly. The relationship to index_status is implicit through naming.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters5/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: query, mode (with enum equivalent wording), top_k (default), and path (with example). It adds semantic meaning beyond the schema, clarifying mode options and path filter semantics, making parameter usage unambiguous.

    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 identifies the tool's purpose: 'Search the codebase using keyword, semantic, or hybrid search.' This is a specific verb+resource+modes formulation that immediately distinguishes it from the sibling tool index_status, which is about indexing status, not searching.

    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 on how to use the tool, including three search modes with a default, and optional path filtering. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or directly name index_status as an alternative, but the sibling relationship is clear. The mode descriptions implicitly guide selection (e.g., hybrid as default).

    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

embecode MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

embecode 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/jdtzmn/embecode'

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