Skip to main content
Glama
jmpijll

site24x7-code-mode-mcp

by jmpijll
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0-beta.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one for discovering API operations via read-only search, and one for executing API calls. There is no functional overlap.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent 'site24x7_verb' pattern with snake_case, making them predictable and easy to parse.

    Tool Count2/5

    Two tools are too few for a full API surface; the design essentially reduces the interface to a generic code execution sandbox. This feels thin even if intended as a flexible escape hatch.

    Completeness1/5

    The tool set provides no specific CRUD or lifecycle operations; it relies entirely on writing custom code. This is severely incomplete for the stated scope of a Site24x7 API wrapper.

  • Average 4.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is failing

  • 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

  • Behavior5/5

    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 async nature, top-level await restrictions, error prefixes, limits (max calls, timeout), credentials handling, and retry on 429. This is thorough behavioral transparency.

    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 long but well-structured with sections for surface, recipe, errors, limits. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and each paragraph adds value. Could be slightly more concise but efficient for the complexity.

    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 no output schema and one parameter, the description covers usage, errors, limits, and MSP pattern comprehensively. It lacks explicit return value format but demonstrates it in examples, making it nearly complete.

    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 coverage is 100% with only one parameter `code` described minimally. The description adds significant meaning: code format (IIFE), namespace usage, error handling patterns, and MSP recipe, far exceeding the schema 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 'Run Site24x7 API calls by writing JavaScript that uses the `site24x7` namespace.' This is a specific verb (execute) and resource (Site24x7 API), and it distinguishes from the sibling tool `site24x7_search` by being a general execution tool.

    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 extensive usage patterns: typed calls, operationId, raw HTTP, MSP recipe, and error handling. It implicitly differentiates from `site24x7_search`, but lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior5/5

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

    No annotations are provided, but the description fully discloses behavioral traits: 'The sandbox is read-only — no network.' It also lists available globals and their behaviors (searchOperations, getOperation, etc.), providing comprehensive 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 headings, bullet points, and code blocks. It front-loads the purpose and usage guidance, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

    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?

    The description adequately covers the tool's context given the lack of output schema. It explains how `console.log` is captured and that the final expression is returned. However, it could explicitly mention error handling or return format for edge cases.

    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 covers 100% of parameters (single `code` parameter). The description adds value by explaining that the final expression is returned and provides examples of usage patterns, though the schema already describes the parameter well.

    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 'search' and resource 'Site24x7 REST API spec'. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool `site24x7_execute` by noting 'Use this tool to discover what to call before invoking site24x7_execute'.

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

    Usage Guidelines5/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description explicitly says when to use this tool ('discover what to call') versus the sibling tool ('before invoking site24x7_execute'). It also implies not to use for execution since the sandbox is read-only.

    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

site24x7-code-mode-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

site24x7-code-mode-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/jmpijll/site24x7-code-mode-mcp'

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