Skip to main content
Glama
linhanhan227

Python MCP Toolkit Server

by linhanhan227
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a clearly distinct domain: agent manages task state, file_operation handles files, and web_search performs internet searches. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent pattern of lowercase with underscores (agent, file_operation, web_search), making them predictable and easy to distinguish.

    Tool Count4/5

    With 3 tools, the server is minimal but focused on essential utilities (task management, file ops, web search). It is slightly on the low end but appropriate for its stated purpose.

    Completeness3/5

    The set covers basic utility functions but lacks other common toolkit operations like code execution, data processing, or API calls, making it somewhat incomplete for a general 'Toolkit' server.

  • Average 3.3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 7 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 GPL 3.0.

  • 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 does not mention side effects (e.g., state mutation), authentication requirements, rate limits, or lifecycle behavior of actions (start, update, finish, reset). This is insufficient for a tool managing task state.

    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 a single sentence, making it concise. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness. Overall, it earns its place.

    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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, actions enum) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the high-level purpose but lacks details on action semantics, required states, and usage flow, making it incomplete for full guidance.

    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 each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is 3, and the description does not compensate with extra context.

    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 states the tool manages agent task status and records goals, steps, progress, and results. This is clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools (file_operation, web_search) which have different domains. However, the verb 'manage' is somewhat broad; a more specific verb like 'track' would improve clarity.

    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?

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools are quite different, but explicit when-to-use instructions are absent.

    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?

    Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the output format but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or limitations. Parameter-level descriptions in the schema hint at pagination, but the main description lacks this 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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

    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 3 parameters (100% schema coverage) and an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It could be enriched by mentioning provider options and result pagination, but the schema fills many gaps.

    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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, but it is not required to.

    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 verb 'search', resource 'public web pages', and specifies the return fields (title, URL, summary). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools 'agent' and 'file_operation'.

    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 'agent' or 'file_operation'. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

    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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the write permission requirement, but fails to describe error handling, side effects, idempotency, or safety for other operations. This is insufficient.

    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 sentence that conveys the essential purpose and a key behavioral constraint. It is efficiently front-loaded with the scope and permission condition.

    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?

    Despite the complexity (17 parameters, 13 actions), the description is minimal. It covers the workspace scope and write permission but lacks details on typical use cases, return values (though output schema exists), or guidance on action selection. The schema covers parameter details, but the context is sparse.

    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 baseline is 3. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions the write requirement which is already implied by the action enum.

    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?

    Description clearly states the tool executes file operations within MCP_WORKSPACE, distinct from sibling tools (agent, web_search). The verb 'execute file operations' and resource 'MCP_WORKSPACE' are specific.

    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?

    Description indicates that write/copy/move/delete operations require MCP_ALLOW_WRITE=true, providing clear context. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are needed given sibling tools are unrelated.

    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

termux-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

termux-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/linhanhan227/termux-mcp'

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