Skip to main content
Glama
jupiter-ai0211

project-notes MCP Server

by jupiter-ai0211
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools are clearly distinct: one creates notes, the other searches them. There is no ambiguity in their purposes.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tools follow a verb_noun pattern, but one uses singular 'note' and the other plural 'notes', creating a minor inconsistency. The pattern is otherwise predictable and readable.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a project-notes domain. The count matches the minimal add/search functionality, but it borders on insufficient for a well-scoped tool set.

    Completeness2/5

    The domain is note management, but the surface only supports adding and searching. Missing core operations like getting a specific note, updating, deleting, or listing all notes creates significant gaps that will force agents to work around missing functionality.

  • Average 2.6/5 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 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

  • 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. It only says 'Add a note' without disclosing whether this creates a new note, requires authentication, is idempotent, or returns anything. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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

    Conciseness3/5

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

    The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, it is under-specified, missing critical details, so it is concise but not effectively informative.

    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?

    The tool is simple, but the description does not explain parameter semantics, return behavior (no output schema), or any preconditions. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context and fails to.

    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?

    Schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain what 'title' or 'content' mean or how they relate to the project. The parameter names are generic and provide no additional semantics.

    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 ('Add a note') and the resource ('note about the project'). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling tool 'search_notes', the verb 'add' versus 'search' provides implicit 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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context is provided for the project. The description only states the action without explaining scenarios or prerequisites.

    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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search notes by keyword' implies a read operation but does not state whether it is read-only, case‑sensitive, or returns partial matches. There is no information about pagination, ordering, or access restrictions, which is a significant gap for a search tool.

    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 a single, front‑loaded sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately concise for a simple search tool. If anything, it is under‑specified rather than verbose, but it earns its place by clearly identifying the tool's purpose.

    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?

    Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and any relevant behavior. 'Search notes by keyword' does not mention the format of results, error conditions, or any filtering capabilities. For a simple tool it is still incomplete, leaving the agent to guess at the tool's behavior.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters2/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The schema has zero description coverage for the 'query' parameter. The description adds the word 'keyword' but that is largely synonymous with 'query'. It does not clarify whether the search is substring, full‑text, exact match, or case‑insensitive. For a single required parameter, more detail was needed to compensate for the missing schema description.

    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 uses a specific verb 'Search' with a resource 'notes' and a modifier 'by keyword', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'add_note' which creates notes. However, it lacks additional context about scope or behavior, making it clear but not exceptionally rich.

    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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention the sibling tool 'add_note' or any exclusions. It merely states what it does, implying usage 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

sample-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

sample-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/jupiter-ai0211/sample-mcp-server'

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