Skip to main content
Glama
jlgrimes

Pokemon TCG Card Search MCP

by jlgrimes
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one searches for cards, while the other looks up prices for cards. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to choose the right tool based on the task.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names follow a consistent pattern of 'pokemon-card-' prefix followed by a descriptive action (search, price). This uniformity makes the tools predictable and easy to understand.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for a card search domain. It lacks operations like filtering, sorting, or detailed card information retrieval, which are typical for such a purpose, making the scope incomplete.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for a Pokemon TCG card search server. It covers basic search and price lookup but misses essential operations such as filtering by attributes (e.g., type, rarity), getting card details, or managing collections, leading to potential agent failures.

  • Average 2.5/5 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 status not available

  • This repository is licensed under ISC 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

  • Behavior1/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers no behavioral information. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the output looks like. For a search tool with 14 parameters, this lack of transparency is critical.

    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 extremely concise at three words, with zero wasted text. It is front-loaded and efficiently states the core function without unnecessary elaboration, though this brevity contributes to other deficiencies.

    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 the complexity (14 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain the search scope, result format, pagination, or how parameters interact. For a rich search tool, this minimal description leaves the agent with insufficient context.

    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 the schema fully documents all 14 parameters with detailed descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without additional value.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose2/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description 'Searches for Pokemon cards' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb ('Searches') and resource ('Pokemon cards'), but lacks detail on scope, filtering capabilities, or how it differs from the sibling tool 'pokemon-card-price'. This is a tautology that provides no meaningful distinction.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines1/5

    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 alternatives. The description does not mention the sibling tool 'pokemon-card-price' or any context for choosing between search and price lookup. There is no indication of prerequisites, typical use cases, or limitations.

    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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool looks up 'current market price' but doesn't specify data sources, freshness, accuracy, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a price lookup tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the essential information.

    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?

    For a price lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format the price data returns (single value, range, historical data), currency, confidence metrics, or typical response structure. The agent has minimal context about what to expect from this tool.

    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 the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how 'name' and 'set' parameters affect price lookup results or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

    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 clearly states the verb ('look up') and resource ('current market price for a Pokemon card'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'pokemon-card-search', which likely has overlapping functionality for searching cards rather than specifically checking prices.

    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 the sibling 'pokemon-card-search' tool, nor does it mention any prerequisites, constraints, or alternative scenarios. The agent must infer usage based solely on the tool name and description without explicit direction.

    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

ptcg-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

ptcg-mcp 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/jlgrimes/ptcg-mcp'

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