Skip to main content
Glama
lethain

Systems MCP

by lethain
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one loads documentation/examples for reference, while the other executes a model with given specifications. There is no overlap in functionality, and an agent would easily differentiate between them based on their clear descriptions.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case naming: load_systems_documentation and run_systems_model. The naming is predictable and readable, with no deviations in style or convention across the set.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for the domain of 'systems modeling,' which typically involves more operations like creating, updating, or analyzing models. This limited set may hinder agents from performing comprehensive tasks, as it lacks tools for specification generation, validation, or result analysis beyond basic execution.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for systems modeling. It provides documentation loading and model execution but misses essential operations such as creating or editing specifications, validating models, analyzing outputs in-depth, or managing model versions. This creates significant gaps that will likely cause agent failures in real-world scenarios.

  • Average 3.1/5 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

  • 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool runs a model and returns JSON output, but doesn't describe what 'running a systems model' entails (e.g., computational requirements, execution time, side effects, error conditions, or authentication needs). For a tool that presumably performs computation, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

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

    The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address purpose and parameters. The structure is front-loaded with the core functionality first, followed by parameter details. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more polished in formatting.

    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 that there's an output schema (which handles return value documentation) but no annotations and incomplete parameter semantics, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks important behavioral context for a computational tool. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but other gaps remain.

    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 description adds some semantic context beyond the schema: it explains that 'spec' is 'The systems model specification' and 'rounds' is 'Number of rounds to run (default: 100)'. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't fully compensate - it doesn't explain what format the 'spec' should be in (e.g., JSON, YAML, specific syntax) or what 'rounds' means in the context of systems modeling.

    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: 'Run a systems model and return output of list of dictionaries in JSON.' This specifies the verb ('Run'), resource ('a systems model'), and output format. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'load_systems_documentation', which appears to be a documentation loading function rather than a model execution tool.

    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. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'load_systems_documentation' or any other context for selection. The only usage hint is the default value for 'rounds', but this doesn't help with tool selection decisions.

    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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'documentation and several examples of systems models' which describes output behavior. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what happens if documentation isn't available. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

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

    The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve a purpose: the first states what the tool does and its purpose, the second describes the return value. It's front-loaded with the main action. There's minimal waste, though the second sentence could be integrated more smoothly.

    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 has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values extensively. For a simple parameterless documentation loading tool, this provides adequate context.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters. No additional parameter information is needed or provided, which is correct for a parameterless tool.

    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 tool 'loads systems documentation, examples, and specification details' which is a clear purpose, but it's somewhat vague about what exactly is being loaded. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'run_systems_model' by focusing on loading documentation rather than executing models, but the distinction could be more explicit. The description doesn't specify verb+resource with precision.

    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 mentions the tool helps 'improve the models ability to generate specifications' which implies usage context, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing, or comparison with the sibling tool 'run_systems_model'. The usage context is implied 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

systems-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

systems-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/lethain/systems-mcp'

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