Skip to main content
Glama
kpsunil97

DevRev MCP Server

by kpsunil97
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: get_object retrieves a specific object by ID, while search performs a broader query-based lookup. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these operations.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb-based naming pattern (get_ and search), with clear, descriptive names that align well with their functions. No deviations or mixed conventions are present.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels severely under-scoped for a DevRev platform, which typically involves objects like issues, tickets, or users. This minimal set lacks essential CRUD operations (e.g., create, update, delete) and limits agent functionality.

    Completeness1/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for a DevRev domain, offering only retrieval and search capabilities. There are no tools for creating, updating, or deleting objects, which are fundamental operations in such systems, leading to significant gaps in agent workflows.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 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

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • 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 full burden. It states the tool performs a search but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, destructive, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. The description is minimal and lacks essential 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.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action. Every word 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.

    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 with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral aspects, or what to expect from results. For a search tool with structured inputs, more context is needed to be adequately helpful.

    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 compensate. It mentions 'using the provided query' but doesn't explain the 'query' parameter's semantics or the 'namespace' parameter with its enum values (article, issue, ticket). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the bare schema.

    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 states the action ('search') and target ('DevRev'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what exactly is being searched (e.g., content, records, objects) and doesn't distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_object'. It avoids tautology by not just repeating the name/title.

    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 'get_object'. It mentions 'using the provided query' but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied only through the tool name and 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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'all information' entails. For a 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse and understand 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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal. It states the basic action but lacks details on return values, error cases, or operational context. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more completeness for effective use, but it falls short.

    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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that the 'id' parameter is for a 'DevRev object,' which clarifies the context beyond the schema's generic string type. However, it doesn't detail format, constraints, or examples, leaving some ambiguity. With one parameter, the baseline is higher, but incomplete coverage limits the score.

    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 ('DevRev object') with the specific mechanism ('using its ID'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'search' tool by focusing on retrieval by ID rather than searching. However, it doesn't specify what type of information is returned beyond 'all information,' which keeps it from a perfect score.

    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 you have a specific object ID, contrasting with the 'search' sibling for broader queries. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage context somewhat inferred rather than clearly stated.

    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

devrev-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

devrev-mcp-server 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/kpsunil97/devrev-mcp-server'

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