Skip to main content
Glama
jiziyun149-cpu

crc-lnm-medical-agent

by jiziyun149-cpu
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.12

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools are clearly distinct: one reports health/status information, the other describes the deployment's behavior. There is no overlap in their purposes.

    Naming Consistency2/5

    Naming styles are inconsistent: 'healthcheck' is a single word noun, while 'describe_deployment' follows the verb_noun snake_case pattern. This lack of a consistent convention makes the set feel uncoordinated.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the set is on the thin side, but the explicit mention of a 'deliberately limited behavior' suggests this small count is intentional for a staging environment. Still, it is borderline for a typical server.

    Completeness1/5

    Despite the server name indicating a medical agent, the provided tools only cover operational metadata (healthcheck and deployment description) with zero medical domain functionality. The surface is severely incomplete for any meaningful medical workflow.

  • Average 3.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • 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, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It hints at 'deliberately limited behavior' but does not explain what those limits are, nor does it describe side effects, permissions, or output characteristics. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

    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 with no superfluous words. It is highly concise and front-loaded, stating the action and target immediately.

    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?

    The description is adequate for a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, but the cryptic phrase 'deliberately limited behavior' is unexplained. It could be more complete by clarifying what the description includes or excludes, especially since no usage or alternative context is provided.

    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, and the schema confirms this with an empty properties object. Since there are no parameters to describe, the 0-param baseline of 4 applies, and the description need not add parameter-level detail.

    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 uses the verb 'describe' with a specific resource (the deployment stage's behavior), making its core purpose clear. It distinguishes from the sibling healthcheck by focusing on description rather than health status, though the phrase 'deliberately limited' adds ambiguity.

    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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling healthcheck tool. The description only states what it does, not under what conditions it should be invoked.

    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 provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'report' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state safety, side effects, permissions, or other behavioral traits. The one-liner adds 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.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the action 'Report' and clearly states the resources. It is concise with no unnecessary information, earning a high score for efficiency.

    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?

    Despite having no parameters and an output schema, the description leaves gaps in usage guidelines and behavioral transparency. It provides the essential purpose but lacks guidance on when to use the tool or what behavioral impacts it might have, making it minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

    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 there is nothing to describe. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not need to add parameter details. The empty schema already confirms the lack of parameters.

    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 function with a specific verb 'report' and the resource 'installed package identity and canary transport profile.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool describe_deployment by focusing on identity and canary transport rather than deployment details.

    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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus describe_deployment or any other alternative. It lacks context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, providing no decision-making support.

    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

crc-lnm-medical-agent MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

crc-lnm-medical-agent 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/jiziyun149-cpu/crc-lnm-medical-agent'

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