LibraLM MCP Server

Official

by libralm-ai

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. 'get_book_details' provides comprehensive information, 'get_book_summary' focuses on the main summary, 'get_chapter_summary' targets specific chapters, 'get_table_of_contents' offers structural overview, and 'list_books' enumerates available books. The descriptions make it easy to distinguish between these related but non-overlapping functions.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case throughout. The naming convention is perfectly uniform with 'get_' or 'list_' prefixes followed by specific resource identifiers, making the tool set highly predictable and readable for agents.
Tool Count5/5
Five tools is well-scoped for a book/library management server, with each tool earning its place. This count provides comprehensive coverage for book exploration without being overwhelming or insufficient, falling within the ideal 3-15 tool range for focused domain coverage.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface provides excellent read-only coverage for book exploration, including listing, detailed views, summaries, and structural information. The only minor gap is the absence of write operations (create/update/delete books or chapters), but for a library/reading-focused server, this is reasonable and agents can work effectively with the provided retrieval tools.
Average 3.1/5 across 5 of 5 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

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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get the summary' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what the summary format includes. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy 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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and simple parameters, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, parameter details, and behavioral context, making it insufficient for full understanding without external information.
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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the two parameters. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the parameter names (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'book_id' or 'chapter_number' represent, their formats, or constraints). With low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters poorly documented.
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 ('summary for a specific chapter of a book'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_book_summary' or 'get_table_of_contents', which might also provide chapter-related information, 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 like 'get_book_summary' or 'get_table_of_contents'. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage context implied at best.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' entails beyond the schema. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It doesn't clarify the scope of 'detailed information' or how it differs from sibling tools, which could hinder the agent's ability to use it effectively in 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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds minimal value by implying the parameter is for a 'specific book'. However, it doesn't explain the format or constraints of 'book_id' (e.g., whether it's an ISBN, internal ID, or something else). Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of semantic detail reduces it to 3.
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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific book'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_book_summary' or 'list_books', which limits its effectiveness in helping the agent choose between alternatives.
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_book_summary' or 'list_books'. It implies usage for detailed book information but lacks explicit context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer when this is the appropriate choice.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, potential rate limits, or error conditions. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the lack of explicit safety or behavioral context leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to properly invoke this tool.
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 communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place, 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 simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those. However, for a tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, error handling) to be fully complete for 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?
The description mentions 'for a book' which implies the book_id parameter, but with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this adds minimal value beyond what's obvious from the schema. The baseline for a single parameter with low schema coverage would be higher, but since the description doesn't explain what format the book_id should be (e.g., ISBN, internal ID) or where to obtain it, it only partially compensates for the schema gap.
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 action ('Get') and resource ('table of contents for a book with chapter descriptions'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_book_details' or 'get_book_summary' by focusing specifically on the table of contents structure rather than general book information or individual chapters. However, it doesn't specify whether this includes only chapter titles or also page numbers, which keeps it from being 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 like 'get_book_details' or 'list_books'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid book_id from another operation, or clarify what context makes this tool preferable to siblings. The user must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal agent decision-making.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' a summary, implying a read operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what the output contains. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.
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 with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action.
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 (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete behavioral context, it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of structured data, leaving gaps in usage understanding.
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 description implies the parameter 'book_id' is used to identify a book for getting its summary, adding meaning beyond the schema's 0% coverage. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is high, and the description adequately clarifies its purpose without needing detailed syntax.
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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('main summary for a book'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_book_details', which might also provide summary information, so it misses full differentiation.
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_book_details' or 'get_chapter_summary'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a book ID from 'list_books', or exclusions for when not to use it.
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 it lists books with basic information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, pagination behavior, or what 'basic information' includes. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 ('List all available books') and adds necessary context ('with their basic information'). There is zero waste or redundancy, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally complete. However, with no annotations and siblings present, it lacks guidance on usage context and behavioral details. The output schema handles return values, but the description could better address when to use this versus alternatives.
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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
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 action ('List') and resource ('all available books') with the scope of 'basic information'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_book_details or get_book_summary by specifying it returns basic information for all books rather than detailed information for specific books. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., get_table_of_contents).
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 the sibling tools. It doesn't mention alternatives like get_book_details for detailed information or get_book_summary for summaries, nor does it specify any prerequisites or contextual constraints for usage.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![libralm_mcp_server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/libralm-ai/libralm_mcp_server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/libralm-ai/libralm_mcp_server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![libralm_mcp_server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/libralm-ai/libralm_mcp_server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/libralm-ai/libralm_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/libralm-ai/libralm_mcp_server'

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