Skip to main content
Glama
jorgeraad

mcp4gql

by jorgeraad
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
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: introspectGraphQLSchema fetches the schema, while executeGraphQLOperation executes queries/mutations. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tools follow a verb_noun pattern (introspectGraphQLSchema, executeGraphQLOperation), but they use camelCase instead of snake_case. This is a minor deviation from a common convention, but the pattern is consistent and readable across the set.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a GraphQL client purpose. While the tools cover introspection and execution, typical GraphQL interactions might benefit from additional utilities like schema validation or query building, making this count borderline too few.

    Completeness3/5

    The tools cover core GraphQL operations (introspection and execution), but there are notable gaps. For example, there are no tools for schema exploration, query validation, or handling subscriptions, which could limit an agent's ability to fully interact with a GraphQL API.

  • Average 3.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 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 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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool fetches schema via introspection and returns JSON, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only/destructive, leaving gaps for a mutation-sensitive context.

    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 front-loads key information (fetches schema, uses introspection, returns JSON) with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.

    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?

    Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It explains what the tool does and the return format, but lacks context on behavioral traits like safety or performance, which could be important for an API introspection 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's purpose instead, which aligns with the baseline for zero parameters.

    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 action ('fetches') and resource ('schema of the target GraphQL API'), specifying it uses introspection and returns JSON format. It distinguishes from the sibling 'executeGraphQLOperation' by focusing on schema retrieval rather than operation execution, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling for differentiation.

    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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for schema introspection, but it doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or reference the sibling tool for operational queries.

    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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions executing 'query or mutation,' it lacks critical details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only or destructive. This is a significant gap for a tool that can perform mutations.

    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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of only two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

    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?

    Given the tool's complexity (executing arbitrary GraphQL operations with potential mutations) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and usage guidelines well but fails to address behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or response format, which are crucial for such a flexible 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?

    The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (query, variables, operationName) with clear descriptions. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, which aligns with the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.

    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 purpose: 'Executes an arbitrary GraphQL query or mutation against the target API.' It specifies the verb ('executes') and resource ('GraphQL query or mutation'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'introspectGraphQLSchema' by mentioning it as a prerequisite for understanding available operations.

    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 guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use introspectGraphQLSchema first to understand the available operations.' This clearly indicates a prerequisite and distinguishes it from the sibling tool, offering a specific alternative for schema exploration.

    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

mcp4gql MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp4gql 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/jorgeraad/mcp4gql'

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