Skip to main content
Glama
krishangMittal

GovNavigator

by krishangMittal
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: search_ordinance finds relevant ordinance sections based on topics, while get_ordinance_details retrieves full details for a specific section. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them, as one is for discovery and the other for detailed lookup.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (search_ordinance and get_ordinance_details) with clear, descriptive names. The naming convention is uniform and predictable across the tool set.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for its apparent scope of navigating municipal codes and ordinances. While the tools cover search and detail retrieval, the lack of additional operations like listing ordinances, updating information, or handling related processes suggests an incomplete surface for the domain.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for a municipal code navigation server. It only supports search and detail retrieval, missing essential operations such as listing ordinances, accessing related documents, or providing updates. This creates significant gaps that could hinder agent workflows in this domain.

  • Average 4.2/5 across 2 of 2 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

  • 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

  • Behavior3/5

    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 implies this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what constitutes 'full details' in the response. The description adds some context about the workflow but lacks operational details.

    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 sentences, zero waste. The first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance. Both sentences earn their place by adding distinct value beyond what's in 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 simple single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and workflow positioning. However, it doesn't describe what 'full details' includes in the response, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.

    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 the single 'title' parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'by title' but doesn't provide additional semantic context about format, examples, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

    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 full details') and resource ('a specific ordinance section by title'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'search_ordinance' which presumably returns multiple results rather than detailed information about one section.

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

    Usage Guidelines5/5

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

    Explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this after search_ordinance to get more details about a specific section'), providing clear context and naming the alternative tool (search_ordinance) for the initial search step.

    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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'returns relevant ordinance sections with citations' which describes the output behavior, but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.

    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 well-structured and efficiently organized with clear sections: purpose statement, usage scenarios, return value description, and concrete query examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

    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 search tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool does and when to use it. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the format of returned results (e.g., structured data vs text snippets).

    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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain query formatting or result ranking). This 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 tool's purpose as searching Madison, WI municipal code/ordinances for specific topics, with specific examples of regulations (fences, parking, noise, permits). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_ordinance_details' by focusing on search rather than detailed retrieval.

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

    Usage Guidelines5/5

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

    The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool, listing specific user question types (city regulations, what is allowed/prohibited, requirements, penalties/fees) and includes concrete examples of good queries. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tool for detailed ordinance retrieval.

    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

GovNavigator MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

GovNavigator 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/krishangMittal/GovNavigator'

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