gemot

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a clearly distinct aspect of deliberation: admin handles audit and templates, analyze runs analysis, coordinate manages multi-agent coordination, decide tracks commitments, deliberation manages deliberation lifecycle, and participate handles position submission and voting. No overlap in purposes.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names are single words but mix verb (analyze, coordinate, decide, participate) and noun (admin, deliberation) forms. However, the pattern is consistent in being concise and descriptive, with only minor inconsistency.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools is well-scoped for the domain of deliberation and consensus. Each tool encapsulates a coherent set of related actions, and the count is neither too few nor too many.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers the full deliberation lifecycle: creation, participation, analysis, coordination, commitments, and audit. All essential operations are present, and there are no obvious gaps.
Average 3.2/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 122 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It describes the actions at a high level but does not reveal side effects, permission requirements, or failure modes (e.g., what happens if delegation fails). The description leaves significant behavioral gaps for an agent to infer.
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 structured with a clear header and bulleted actions, making it easy to scan. It front-loads the purpose and uses separate lines for each action. However, it is somewhat verbose (e.g., repeating 'optional:' for each action) and could be streamlined without losing meaning.
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 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error handling, or prerequisites for actions (e.g., need for a valid deliberation_id). An agent would lack necessary context to invoke the tool reliably, especially for edge cases.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by mapping parameters to actions (e.g., 'delegate' uses deliberation_id, from_agent, to_agent, optional scope). However, it does not explain the meaning or constraints of parameters like 'scope', 'role', or 'ttl_minutes', nor does it specify valid values or defaults.
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 tool is for multi-agent coordination and enumerates four distinct actions (delegate, invite, generate_join_code, join). This provides a specific verb-resource mapping and distinguishes the tool from generic names. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'deliberation' or 'participate', which may also involve agent interactions.
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?
The description lists actions and their associated parameters, giving context for when each action is used (e.g., 'Delegate your vote to another agent'). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., when to coordinate vs. deliberate) and does not mention non-usage 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It briefly lists actions but does not explain side effects, errors, idempotency, or other behavioral traits beyond the basic action semantics.
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 relatively concise with a clear overall statement followed by a bullet list. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Minor improvement could be to integrate the list more compactly, but it is still efficient.
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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, multiple sub-actions) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify required parameters per action, return values, or error conditions, leaving an agent without sufficient context to use it correctly.
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 description provides parameter context for each sub-action (e.g., for 'commit': deliberation_id, agent_id, statement, conditional), which partially compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. However, parameters like 'verified_by', 'group_id', and 'reason' are not explained, leaving gaps.
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 tool is for 'Commitments and reputation tracking' and lists sub-actions, making its purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'coordinate' or 'deliberation', which may have overlapping functionality.
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 lists sub-actions but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explain prerequisites or scenarios. An agent would need to infer usage from the action names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the behavior of each sub-action (e.g., 'Vote on a position — value: -2=strongly_disagree...') and lists relevant parameters. However, it does not cover side effects, permissions, failure modes, or constraints beyond the immediate actions.
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 verbose and lists actions in a dense paragraph. Bullet points or clearer separation of actions would improve readability. Every sentence adds some value, but the structure hinders quick scanning.
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?
Despite the complexity (23 params, 8 actions, no output schema), the description lacks information on return values, error handling, prerequisites (e.g., key registration), and interaction between actions. It provides enough to use basic actions but not comprehensive context.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by grouping parameters per action (e.g., 'submit_position: ... optional: model_family, group...'). However, it does not fully explain all 23 parameters or their interdependencies, leaving ambiguity.
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 defines the tool's purpose ('Participate in a deliberation') and breaks down eight distinct sub-actions with concise explanations. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like 'decide' or 'deliberation' by focusing on participation actions.
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. The description lists sub-actions but does not provide decision criteria or context for choosing this tool over siblings like 'analyze' or 'coordinate'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior by naming actions and their parameters (e.g., 'tamper-evident log with proofs' for get_audit_log). However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or destructive potential, leaving gaps for an agent.
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: a brief intro followed by a clear bullet list of five actions. Each entry is a single line with the action name and parenthetical parameters. No extraneous text; easily scannable.
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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description provides adequate high-level understanding but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or required action values. It covers the five actions adequately but is not fully self-contained.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by linking parameters to specific actions (e.g., 'report_abuse: Report abusive content (deliberation_id, reason)'). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, helping the agent map parameters to sub-tasks.
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 lists specific admin and audit actions (report_abuse, get_audit_log, etc.), clearly indicating the tool's domain. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'analyze' or 'coordinate' by focusing on administrative tasks. However, it lacks a single verb+resource statement, relying on an enumeration.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for admin/audit tasks but does not state when not to use it or compare it to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description partially covers behavior by naming actions (e.g., 'soft-delete' implies deletion is reversible, but does not explain consequences). It lacks details on side effects, idempotency, or permission requirements.
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 well-structured as a bullet-like list of actions with parameters in parentheses, avoiding verbosity. It front-loads the purpose and efficiently conveys key information.
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 complexity (14 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core actions and parameter requirements but omits return values, error handling, and behavioral specifics. It is adequate but not thorough.
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 0%, so the description adds value by mapping parameters to specific actions (e.g., create requires topic, description, etc.). However, it does not explain the meaning of each parameter (e.g., 'type', 'visibility') or constraints, leaving gaps.
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 function as 'Manage deliberations' and enumerates specific actions (create, get, list, delete, etc.) with their required parameters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like admin or analyze.
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 lists actions but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (admin, analyze, etc.) or which action to choose for a given scenario. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
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 burden and does well: it explains the async nature of expert_panel (returns immediately, needs polling), the need for round completion for follow_up, and the meaning of actions like cancel. However, it does not explicitly state safety or side effects beyond mutation implied by 'cancel' and 'create'.
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 organized as a list of actions with parameters inline, front-loaded with the purpose. It is relatively concise given the complexity (8 sub-actions). Still, it could be shortened by separating parameter details into the schema.
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 16 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main behaviors but lacks return value descriptions for most actions (only expert_panel mentions returning deliberation_id). It does not explain the output format or error handling, leaving gaps for an agent.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains most parameters in context of actions (e.g., depth for expert_panel, position_id for reframe). However, some parameters like 'result_json' and 'round' are not fully described, and the mapping of parameters to actions is not complete.
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 that the tool analyzes disagreements and finds common ground, listing specific actions like 'run', 'get_result', 'expert_panel'. It differentiates from sibling tools (admin, coordinate, etc.) by focusing on analysis of debates. However, the broad name 'analyze' could be more specific.
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?
The description provides context for each action (e.g., triggering analysis, getting results, challenging), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'deliberation' or 'decide'. No 'when not to use' or alternative recommendations.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![gemot MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/justinstimatze/gemot/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/justinstimatze/gemot)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![gemot MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/justinstimatze/gemot/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/justinstimatze/gemot)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/justinstimatze/gemot'

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