Skip to main content
Glama
jmrapp1

HytaleModding.dev MCP Server

by jmrapp1
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation2/5

    Both tools are described as 'Fetch the full content of a Hytale modding documentation page', making them appear to do the same thing. While one is named 'search' and the other 'get', the descriptions do not clearly differentiate their purposes, leaving agents confused about which to use.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tool names follow a verb_noun pattern (search_docs, get_doc), but one uses the plural 'docs' and the other singular 'doc', a minor inconsistency. The verbs 'search' and 'get' are distinct and reasonably clear.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels minimal. For a documentation server, a search and fetch pair is plausible, but the count is at the lower end of what is reasonable for a coherent toolset.

    Completeness3/5

    The server appears to cover searching and fetching documentation pages, but the unclear boundary between the tools leaves a gap in understanding how to discover pages without already knowing a path. A clearer search step or listing mechanism would make the surface more complete.

  • Average 3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored. Lowest: 1.3/5.

    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

  • 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

  • Behavior1/5

    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 fails to disclose that this is a search operation returning page results; instead, it claims to fetch full content. There is no mention of pagination, result format, or any behavioral details. The description actively misleads about what the tool does.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness2/5

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

    The description is short but not concise in an effective way. It mixes two unrelated instructions (fetching content and using search_docs) without clear separation. The structure is confusing and fails to front-load the actual search purpose.

    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?

    Despite having an output schema and simple parameters, the description is incomplete and misleading. An agent would not be able to correctly select and invoke this tool based on the description. It lacks any statement that this is a search tool, and the reference to 'doc path' is a serious omission/contradiction.

    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?

    The schema covers all parameters (query, limit, locale) with clear descriptions. However, the description instructs 'Provide a doc path (e.g. '/en/docs/official-documentation')', which does not match any parameter. A doc path is not the query parameter, and no 'path' parameter exists. This directly contradicts the schema and misguides the agent.

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

    Purpose1/5

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

    The description says 'Fetch the full content of a Hytale modding documentation page,' which describes a retrieval tool, not a search tool. The only hint that this is search_docs is 'Use search_docs first to find the right page path,' which is buried and contradicts the main verb 'Fetch'. The purpose is misleading.

    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?

    It provides a mild workflow hint ('Use search_docs first to find the right page path'), implying an alternative tool (get_doc) exists for fetching. However, it never explicitly states when to use search_docs vs get_doc, and the description itself confuses the two roles.

    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 provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the key precondition that URLs must come from search_docs and implies read-only behavior ('Fetch'). While it doesn't cover error handling or output format, the mandatory prerequisite is a valuable behavioral disclosure for a simple read tool.

    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 the purpose front-loaded and the critical usage prerequisite in a clear second sentence. Every word contributes value; there is no 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?

    Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, prerequisite, and parameter compatibility. The absence of an output schema means the description need not explain return values, and the 'full content' phrasing gives a general expectation. Minor gap: no detail on response structure, but this is acceptable for a simple fetch 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 schema already documents the 'url' parameter with a format example, giving 100% coverage. The description adds extra meaning by noting that only URLs from search_docs are compatible, which clarifies that not arbitrary URLs will work. This enhances the schema-provided semantics.

    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 a specific verb ('Fetch') and clearly identifies the resource ('full content of a Hytale modding documentation page'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool search_docs by indicating it retrieves full content rather than performing a search.

    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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'You MUST use the search_docs tool first to get a list of URLs that are compatible with this tool.' This clearly states when to use this tool and the required prerequisite, effectively distinguishing it from search_docs.

    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

HytaleModding.dev-MCP-Server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

HytaleModding.dev-MCP-Server 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/jmrapp1/HytaleModding.dev-MCP-Server'

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