Skip to main content
Glama
kongyo2

EVE Online OSINT MCP Server

by kongyo2
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting a specific EVE Online entity type: alliance, character, and corporation. The descriptions specify unique data returns (e.g., member corporations vs. character details vs. member list), eliminating any overlap or confusion in tool selection.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent pattern of 'entity-osint' using snake_case, with 'osint' as a suffix indicating the operation type. This uniformity makes the tools predictable and easy to understand at a glance.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 3 tools, the set feels thin for an OSINT server, as it lacks broader investigative capabilities like searching across entities or accessing related data such as killmails or market information. However, it covers the core entities adequately for basic lookups.

    Completeness4/5

    The tools provide complete coverage for retrieving OSINT data on the main EVE Online entities (alliance, character, corporation), with no dead ends for basic queries. A minor gap exists in the inability to search or cross-reference data beyond direct name lookups, but agents can work around this with sequential tool calls.

  • Average 4/5 across 3 of 3 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 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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation with open-world data. The description adds value by specifying the return content: 'Returns member list, activity metrics, and corporation details,' which gives context on what information is retrieved. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits or auth needs, but with annotations covering safety, this is acceptable.

    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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by return details. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, and the second specifies the output. There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness4/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool's complexity (simple lookup with one parameter), annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description specifies return content. There is no output schema, so the description's mention of return values is helpful. However, it could be more complete by addressing potential errors or usage nuances, but it's largely adequate for the 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?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'corporationName' documented as 'The exact name of the EVE Online corporation to investigate.' The description adds minimal semantics by reinforcing 'by name' but doesn't provide additional details beyond what the schema already covers. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

    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: 'Get OSINT information about an EVE Online corporation by name.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('OSINT information about an EVE Online corporation'), and scope ('by name'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (alliance-osint, character-osint) beyond mentioning 'corporation' specifically.

    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 context by stating 'by name,' suggesting this tool is for looking up specific corporations. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (alliance-osint, character-osint), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is implied but not clearly articulated.

    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?

    Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation with potentially incomplete data. The description adds context about what information is returned (character details, corporation history, current status), which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness.

    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, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates purpose, input method, and return values. Every element earns its place with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness4/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    For a simple read operation with one parameter and good annotations, the description provides adequate context about what information is returned. However, without an output schema, the description could benefit from more detail about the structure or format of the returned data (character details, corporation history, current status).

    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 parameter 'characterName' clearly documented as 'The exact name of the EVE Online character to investigate'. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing that investigation is 'by name', but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema already states.

    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 specific action ('Get OSINT information') and resource ('about an EVE Online character by name'), and distinguishes from sibling tools (character vs alliance/corporation). It specifies the exact scope of information returned: character details, corporation history, and current status.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines4/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description implies when to use this tool (for character investigation by name) and distinguishes it from sibling tools (alliance-osint, corporation-osint) by specifying the target resource. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or provide alternative scenarios beyond the sibling differentiation.

    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?

    Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating it's a safe read operation with open-world data. The description adds value by specifying the return content (member corporations, total member count, alliance details), which isn't covered by annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations, as 'Get' aligns with read-only 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 front-loads the purpose and key details without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and clear annotations.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness4/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, read-only, open-world), annotations cover safety and data scope, and the description specifies return content. However, there's no output schema, so the description could benefit from more detail on output structure or error handling, but it's largely complete for this 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?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'allianceName' well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic context by mentioning 'by name', but doesn't provide additional details beyond what the schema already specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

    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 specific verb ('Get OSINT information') and resource ('about an EVE Online alliance by name'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying it's for alliances rather than characters or corporations. It provides a concrete outcome: 'Returns member corporations, total member count, and alliance details.'

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines4/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description implies usage context by specifying 'by name' and listing what it returns, which helps differentiate it from siblings like character-osint and corporation-osint. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites or exclusions.

    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

EVE-Online-OSINT-MCP MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

EVE-Online-OSINT-MCP 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/kongyo2/EVE-Online-OSINT-MCP'

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