esa MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific resources and actions, with no ambiguity. For example, esa_get_post retrieves a single post, esa_list_posts lists multiple posts, and esa_update_post modifies a post, all clearly differentiated.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with the 'esa_' prefix, using clear action verbs like create, get, list, and update paired with specific nouns like post, comment, and member. There are no deviations in naming style.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, this server is well-scoped for managing posts, comments, and members in a team context. Each tool serves a distinct and necessary function, with no redundancy or missing core operations, making the count appropriate for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface provides strong coverage for posts and comments with full CRUD operations (create, get, list, update) and includes member management. A minor gap exists with no delete operations for posts or comments, but agents can work around this limitation for most workflows.
Average 2.8/5 across 9 of 9 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

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. 'Get a specific comment' implies a read-only operation, but it does not specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.
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 very concise with a single sentence, 'Get a specific comment', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it is overly brief, bordering on under-specification, as it could benefit from slightly more detail without losing efficiency. It earns a high score for conciseness but loses a point for being too minimal.
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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'Get' returns (e.g., comment details), how to handle the 'include' parameter effectively, or any behavioral aspects like permissions. For a read operation with undocumented outputs, more context is needed to make it fully usable.
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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'comment_id' and 'include'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples for the 'include' parameter or context on comment IDs. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a specific comment' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('comment'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'Get' entails (e.g., retrieving details) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'esa_list_comments' or 'esa_get_post', which handle similar resources. This makes it vague compared to more detailed alternatives.
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 sibling tools like 'esa_list_comments' for listing multiple comments or 'esa_get_post' for retrieving posts, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Without such context, users must 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get a list' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination details (implied by parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what data is included in the list. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded. However, it's overly concise to the point of under-specification, lacking necessary details for a tool with no annotations or output schema, which slightly reduces its effectiveness.
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 (a list operation with pagination), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or provide enough context for the agent to use it effectively. The minimal description fails to compensate for the missing structured data.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the two parameters (page and per_page) with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but since coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a list of team members' clearly states the action (get) and resource (team members), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'esa_get_member' (singular). It specifies 'list' which helps differentiate from the singular sibling, but lacks detail on what constitutes a team member or the context.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or compare with siblings like 'esa_get_member' for individual members or other list tools. The description offers no usage instructions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.
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. While 'Post a comment' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., whether a comment ID is returned). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
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 communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and gets directly to the point.
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?
For a write operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after posting (success response, error handling), authentication requirements, or how it differs from sibling tools. The combination of mutation behavior and lack of structured metadata creates significant gaps in understanding.
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 adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone, though the description doesn't provide additional context about parameter relationships or usage examples.
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 ('Post') and resource ('a comment to an article'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'esa_create_post' or 'esa_list_comments', which would require specifying that this is specifically for commenting on existing articles rather than creating new posts or listing comments.
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 like 'esa_create_post' for creating new articles or 'esa_list_comments' for retrieving comments. There's no mention of prerequisites, permissions, or contextual factors that would help an agent choose this tool appropriately.
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. 'Create a new post' implies a write operation, but it doesn't disclose critical traits like required permissions, whether the post is publicly visible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 extremely concise ('Create a new post')—just three words—and front-loaded with the core action. There is zero wasted language, and every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's purpose without redundancy.
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 complexity (a mutation tool with 8 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, usage context, and output expectations. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and contextual details needed for safe and effective use.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 8 parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., 'Post title', 'Post body (Markdown format)'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the 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 'Create a new post' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('post'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'esa_update_post' (which modifies existing posts) and 'esa_list_posts' (which retrieves posts). However, it doesn't specify what type of post or platform, which could be inferred from context but isn't explicit.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), when not to use it (e.g., for updating existing posts), or direct alternatives like 'esa_update_post' for modifications. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list alone.
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. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or what specific information is returned. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no output schema.
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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned about the member, how errors are handled, or any behavioral nuances. For a read operation with no structured output documentation, more context is needed.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'screen_name_or_email' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('information about a specific team member'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'esa_get_members', which retrieves multiple members rather than a specific one.
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 like 'esa_get_members' for listing all members or other sibling tools for different resources. It lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
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. It states the tool retrieves detailed information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' includes. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 complexity of a read operation with two parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, response format), usage context relative to siblings, and doesn't compensate for the absence of an output schema, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('post_number' and 'include') thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of 'include' values or context for post numbers. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific post'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'esa_get_comment' or 'esa_list_posts', which would require mentioning it retrieves a single post by identifier rather than listing or fetching comments.
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 doesn't mention siblings like 'esa_list_posts' for listing posts or 'esa_get_comment' for comments, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a post number. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
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 'Get a list' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether authentication is required, if there are rate limits, what the return format looks like (e.g., JSON array), or if results are paginated (though parameters suggest pagination). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero wasted verbiage. Every word earns its place.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or the structure of returned data. For a tool that likely interacts with an API (ESA appears to be a platform like a knowledge base), this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.
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 description coverage is 100%, with all parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the relationship between 'post_number' and comments or provide usage examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Get a list') and resource ('comments for a post'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'esa_get_comment', which suggests it retrieves a single comment rather than a list. The description is specific but lacks sibling distinction.
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 doesn't mention when to choose 'esa_list_comments' over 'esa_get_comment' (for a single comment) or 'esa_get_post' (which might include comments). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual advice provided.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination support which is valuable, but doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or what happens with empty results. For a list operation with 6 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Get a list of posts in the team') and adds one important behavioral note ('with pagination support'). Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
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?
For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. While concise, it doesn't compensate for the lack of structured metadata. It should address authentication, response format, error handling, or practical usage examples given the complexity implied by multiple filtering and pagination parameters.
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 description coverage is 100%, providing complete parameter documentation. The description adds no specific parameter information beyond implying list functionality with pagination. This meets the baseline score of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of how parameters interact or their practical use.
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 ('Get a list') and resource ('posts in the team'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like esa_get_post (single post retrieval) and esa_list_comments (different resource type), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The mention of pagination support adds useful scope information.
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 doesn't mention when to choose this over esa_get_post for single posts, or how it relates to esa_list_comments. There's no context about prerequisites, team selection, or filtering strategies beyond what's implied by parameters.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update an existing post' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether updates are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields (e.g., are they preserved or reset?). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior safely.
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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update an existing post'), making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose without redundancy or fluff.
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 complexity of a 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects), usage guidelines, and any information about return values or error conditions. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is inadequate.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all 9 parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain interactions between parameters or provide examples). This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with additional semantic context.
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 verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing post'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'esa_create_post' by specifying 'existing' rather than creating new. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update-like operations or provide nuanced scope details.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing the post number), when not to use it (e.g., for minor edits vs. major revisions), or compare it to sibling tools like 'esa_create_post' for new content or 'esa_get_post' for retrieval. Usage context is entirely implied from the tool name.
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:

[![esa-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kajirita2002/esa-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kajirita2002/esa-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![esa-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kajirita2002/esa-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kajirita2002/esa-mcp-server)

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/kajirita2002/esa-mcp-server'

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