EVE University Wiki MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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 different aspects of wiki articles: retrieving full content, links, related topics, sections, summaries, or searching. No overlap exists between these functions, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'get_eve_wiki_X' or 'search_eve_wiki' pattern with snake_case, using descriptive nouns (article, links, topics, sections, summary, search) that clearly indicate their function. This uniformity enhances predictability and usability.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, this server is well-scoped for its purpose of interacting with the EVE University Wiki. Each tool serves a specific and necessary function, such as retrieving content, exploring structure, or searching, without being overly sparse or bloated.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for wiki interaction, including retrieval of full articles, summaries, sections, links, and related topics, plus search functionality. This covers typical agent workflows for information gathering and exploration without obvious gaps.
Average 3.8/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 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 failing
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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only operation with open-world semantics. The description adds context by specifying it retrieves 'links' from an article, which is useful beyond annotations, but doesn't detail behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, or output format, keeping it at a baseline level.
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 any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema) and good annotations, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output (e.g., link format or structure) and usage context relative to siblings, which could be helpful for an agent to operate 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 the single parameter 'title' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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 ('links contained within an EVE University Wiki article'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_eve_wiki_article' or 'get_eve_wiki_sections', which might also involve article content, so it's not a perfect 5.
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 such as 'get_eve_wiki_article' or 'get_eve_wiki_related_topics'. It lacks explicit context, exclusions, or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool 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?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation with potentially unknown data. The description adds value by specifying it retrieves 'sections' of articles, which clarifies the scope beyond what annotations cover, but it doesn't detail behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, or output format.
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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the essential information, 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.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety and data scope, the description is adequate for a basic read operation. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values or structure, and it lacks usage guidelines, leaving some gaps in context for optimal agent 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%, with the 'title' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any extra meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as formatting 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 the resource 'sections of an EVE University Wiki article', which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_eve_wiki_article' or 'get_eve_wiki_summary', which might retrieve different aspects of wiki content, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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 such as 'get_eve_wiki_article' or 'get_eve_wiki_summary'. It lacks any context about use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to 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.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe read operations with potentially incomplete results. The description adds valuable context about the relationship mechanism ('based on categories'), which isn't covered by annotations. No contradictions exist, and it provides useful behavioral insight beyond the structured hints.
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, focused sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and avoids redundancy with the structured fields.
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 read-only tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context about the relationship mechanism. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe the format of returned topics (e.g., whether they include metadata or just titles), leaving a minor gap in completeness.
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 clear documentation for both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain category selection or ranking algorithms). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.
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 topics related to') and resource ('an EVE University Wiki article'), with explicit scope ('based on categories'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_eve_wiki_article (retrieves article content) and get_eve_wiki_links (retrieves hyperlinks) by focusing on category-based topic relationships.
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 when category-based topic relationships are needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_eve_wiki_links (which might retrieve different relationship types) or search_eve_wiki (which searches content). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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 safe read operations and potential unknown inputs. The description adds valuable context by mentioning the 'Wayback Machine fallback', which is not covered by annotations and informs about reliability and data retrieval behavior beyond basic hints.
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 core purpose and includes the fallback detail without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
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) and lack of output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the main action and fallback mechanism, though it could benefit from more detail on output format or error handling to be fully comprehensive.
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 the 'title' parameter clearly documented. The description does not add any additional meaning or details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.
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 ('Get a summary') and resource ('EVE University Wiki article'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the fallback mechanism ('with Wayback Machine fallback'). This is specific and differentiates it from tools like 'get_eve_wiki_article' or 'search_eve_wiki'.
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 for retrieving summaries rather than full articles or other data, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_eve_wiki_article' or 'search_eve_wiki'. No exclusions or clear alternatives are named, leaving some ambiguity.
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 a safe read operation with open-world data. The description adds value by disclosing the 'Wayback Machine fallback' behavior, which is not covered by annotations. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response format, leaving some behavioral traits unspecified.
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 core purpose ('Search for articles on EVE University Wiki') and adds a critical behavioral detail ('with Wayback Machine fallback') without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and structured for clarity.
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 moderate complexity (search with fallback), rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and a key behavioral trait. However, without an output schema, it does not explain return values or result structure, which is a minor gap.
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 clear descriptions for both parameters (query and limit). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as search syntax or result ordering. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately documents the parameters.
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 ('Search for articles') and target resource ('EVE University Wiki'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning the unique 'Wayback Machine fallback' feature. It uses a precise verb ('Search') rather than being vague or tautological.
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 implicitly suggests using this tool for searching articles on the EVE University Wiki, which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus the sibling tools (e.g., get_eve_wiki_article for specific articles), nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives beyond the fallback.
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 a safe read operation with potentially unknown outputs. The description adds valuable context beyond this by mentioning the 'Wayback Machine fallback', which implies resilience behavior not covered by annotations. It does not contradict annotations, as 'Get' aligns with read-only.
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 core purpose ('Get the full content') and includes essential context ('with Wayback Machine fallback') without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place, 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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and a key behavioral trait (fallback), but lacks details on output format or error handling, which could be useful despite the annotations.
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 'title' clearly documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or details about the parameter 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.
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 the full content') and resource ('EVE University Wiki article'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_eve_wiki_summary (which likely provides a summary) and get_eve_wiki_sections (which might list sections). The mention of 'Wayback Machine fallback' adds unique scope, further differentiating it.
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 'full content' and 'Wayback Machine fallback', suggesting this tool is for retrieving complete articles, possibly when the main source is unavailable. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_eve_wiki_summary or search_eve_wiki, leaving some ambiguity.
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-University-Wiki-MCP-Server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

[![EVE-University-Wiki-MCP-Server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kongyo2/EVE-University-Wiki-MCP-Server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kongyo2/EVE-University-Wiki-MCP-Server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![EVE-University-Wiki-MCP-Server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kongyo2/EVE-University-Wiki-MCP-Server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kongyo2/EVE-University-Wiki-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/kongyo2/EVE-University-Wiki-MCP-Server'

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