Skip to main content
Glama
joeleesuh

mcp-simple-server

by joeleesuh
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool performs a completely distinct function: echo returns input, add computes a sum, and get_timestamp returns time. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names are lowercase imperative verbs, with 'get_timestamp' following a verb_noun pattern while 'echo' and 'add' are single verbs. The style is coherent and predictable.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools is an appropriate size for a simple utility server. Each tool serves a clear purpose without unnecessary bloat or redundancy.

    Completeness5/5

    As a general-purpose simple server, there is no single domain requiring full CRUD coverage. The provided tools cover a reasonable set of basic operations for a lightweight utility.

  • Average 4.2/5 across 3 of 3 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

  • 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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Echoes back the provided message' completely describes the tool's action and return value, making the behavior fully transparent for a trivial pure function.

    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 concise sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

    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?

    For a tool with one fully-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. 'Echoes back the provided message' fully conveys input and output behavior without needing further elaboration.

    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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter 'message' is already described as 'The message to echo back'. The description's 'provided message' is redundant and adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema.

    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 the specific verb 'echoes' with the resource 'provided message', clearly stating what the tool does. It is distinct from siblings 'add' and 'get_timestamp', leaving no ambiguity about its function.

    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 alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

    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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes a pure, side-effect-free operation with no hidden state changes, permissions, or side effects. The behavior is fully captured by the statement 'Adds two numbers together', which is adequate for this trivial function.

    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 six-word sentence that is front-loaded and to the point. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

    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 extreme simplicity of the tool (two numeric parameters, no side effects, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It states the operation, and the return value (the sum) is logically implied. Additional context would be unnecessary and would not improve usability.

    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?

    The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('The first number' and 'The second number'). The description reinforces that the operation is addition but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already specifies, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

    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 'Adds two numbers together' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the arithmetic operation. It immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools like echo and get_timestamp, which serve entirely different purposes.

    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 context is unambiguous: this tool is for adding two numeric values. While no explicit alternatives or exclusion conditions are mentioned, the simplicity and clarity of the purpose make the appropriate usage obvious, and the sibling tools are disjoint in functionality.

    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, the description takes on the full burden and adequately discloses the tool's behavior: it returns a timestamp in a specified format. It does not mention edge cases like timezone or system clock, but for a simple read-only operation, the transparency is sufficient.

    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, compact sentence that conveys all necessary information without repetition or filler. It is front-loaded and every word contributes value.

    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 trivial nature (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It fully explains the return value and format, leaving no critical gap in understanding.

    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 description appropriately omits parameter details. Baseline of 4 is given because there is nothing to explain beyond what the schema already indicates (an empty object).

    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 returns the current timestamp in ISO 8601 format, using a specific verb ('Returns') and a precise resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like echo and add, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

    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?

    No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the tool's purpose is self-evident and siblings are unrelated. The usage context is implied rather than stated, so it does not fully meet the 'clear context' bar.

    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

mcp-simple-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-simple-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/joeleesuh/mcp-simple-server'

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