Penny

by kangwa

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.3.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool addresses a distinct step in the execution workflow: environment readiness, plan validation, submission, status retrieval, cancellation, and reporting. There is no overlap or ambiguity between tool purposes.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (validate_plan, submit_plan, get_run, cancel_run, get_report). The exception is 'doctor', which is a single verb, but its purpose is clear and the deviation is minor.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools provide a focused yet complete coverage of the run lifecycle without unnecessary redundancy. The count feels well-scoped for the server's stated purpose.
Completeness5/5
The toolset covers environment setup, plan validation, run submission, status monitoring, cancellation, and report retrieval—all essential operations for executing and managing repo runs. No critical gaps are apparent.
Average 3.4/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 6 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 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It confirms a check operation but does not disclose whether it modifies anything, what checks are performed, or what success/failure looks like. The term 'ready' is undefined.
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?
Single sentence, direct, and front-loaded with the action. No wasted words.
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 description is too minimal for a tool with an output schema and no annotations. It doesn't explain what readiness means, what the output contains, or any side effects. Sibling tool names provide some context but not enough.
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 description references 'repository' but adds no semantic detail. The input schema provides only a string type with no description, and the description does not clarify expected values, format, or scope.
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: checking local environment readiness for a repository. The verb 'check' and the resource 'local execution environment' are specific, and this distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with plans and runs.
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 like validate_plan or get_report. The description implies a pre-flight check use case but does not state explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Request cancellation of an active run.' It does not explain whether cancellation is asynchronous, what state the run enters, whether it is reversible, or what failures may occur. The wording 'Request cancellation' hints at a non-guaranteed result but leaves the outcome undefined.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns its place by providing the essential purpose without unnecessary detail.
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 mutating operation with no annotations and no output schema details visible, the description is too sparse. It omits side effects, response/error behavior, and prerequisites. The phrase 'active run' provides some context but does not address what happens for non-active runs or how cancellation results are communicated.
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 includes a single required parameter, run_id, and the description adds the qualifier 'active run', implying the run must be in progress. This adds slight semantic meaning beyond the schema. However, the description does not specify the format of run_id or how to obtain it, and schema coverage is effectively 0%.
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 phrase, 'Request cancellation', and identifies the target resource, 'active run'. This clearly conveys what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_run and validate_plan. However, it does not elaborate on the scope of cancellation (e.g., partial vs. full).
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 intended usage is implied: use when an active run needs to be stopped. However, the description does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. There is no mention of checking run status first or scenarios where cancellation might not be possible.
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, the description must disclose behavior itself. It only says 'Return the execution report' which implies a read operation but does not describe whether the report is always available, what it contains beyond execution, or side effects. 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 sentence with no waste. It is direct and appropriately sized.
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 there is an output schema, return values are covered. However, the description lacks usage context and alternative differentiation, and with no annotations, the description does not fully stand alone for a simple retrieval tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds minimal meaning: it implies run_id refers to a run but gives no format, source, or relationship to other resources. The param name 'run_id' is self-explanatory but the description doesn't compensate for missing schema docs.
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 'Return' and names a distinct resource 'execution report', clearly differentiating from sibling get_run. It states the scope ('for a run') and the action is unambiguous.
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 sibling tools like get_run. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or contexts where this report is applicable.
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 disclosing behavior. It only states that it returns the current state, but it does not mention whether the operation is safe/read-only (implicit from 'get'), error handling for invalid run_ids, or any caveats about staleness. This lack of detail is a notable gap for a tool with zero 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, concise sentence that directly conveys the purpose. It avoids redundant phrasing and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter, output schema provided), and the description is enough for a basic getter. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use it relative to siblings and does not mention any prerequisites like 'after submission' beyond the word 'submitted.' Overall, it is minimally adequate but leaves room for more context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on the run_id parameter. While the parameter name and type are self-explanatory, the description adds no additional meaning about required format, source, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.
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 'Return the current state of a submitted run' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a read operation for run status. It distinguishes itself from siblings like cancel_run and submit_plan by focusing on state retrieval, not modification.
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 implies usage after a run is submitted, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_report or cancel_run. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving usage to be inferred from the tool name and context.
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 carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly notes that the tool returns immediately with a run_id, indicating asynchronous behavior. However, it provides no details about failure modes, permissions, or what happens during validation failure.
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?
Two compact sentences deliver the essential behavior and return value. The information is front-loaded and every word serves a purpose, with no 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?
The tool is relatively simple with only two string parameters and an output schema, so the description does not need to detail return values. However, the lack of parameter clarification and failure behavior leaves some gaps for a critical submission tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only implicitly covers 'manifest' by saying 'Validate a manifest,' leaving 'repository' entirely unspecified. The description adds minimal value over the raw parameter names.
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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Validate a manifest and queue a run.' This distinguishes it from siblings like validate_plan (validation only) and get_run (retrieval).
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 implies the tool is used to submit a plan for execution, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over validate_plan or other siblings. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, so the guidance is only implied.
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 provides the important behavioral guarantee of no side effects ('without starting any work'), but it does not disclose other characteristics such as return behavior, network/IO dependencies, or how validation errors are reported. Adds some value but remains limited.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key safety property. No wasted words.
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?
The tool has a simple schema and output schema, but with no annotations, the description should provide more guidance. It covers the no-side-effect property but omits repository semantics and any validation behavior. Adequate but not complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify both parameters. It only clarifies 'manifest' as a YAML execution manifest, while 'repository' is undefined. This leaves a critical gap for correct invocation.
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 action (validate), the resource (YAML execution manifest), and the key constraint (without starting any work). This distinguishes it from submit_plan and other siblings.
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 phrase 'without starting any work' implies a use case of pre-flight checking before execution, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use this rather than submit_plan. Usage context is implied but not explicit.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/kangwa/penny'

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