Skip to main content
Glama
lsd-so

LSD MCP Server

by lsd-so
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation2/5

    The tools have unclear boundaries and overlapping purposes. 'brave_search' and 'find_trips' could both be interpreted as search tools, with the latter's lack of description making it ambiguous whether it searches for trips or performs another function. 'run_lsd' is completely opaque without a description, potentially overlapping with execution or processing roles.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    The naming is mixed but readable. 'brave_search' and 'find_trips' follow a verb_noun pattern, while 'run_lsd' uses a verb_prefix style. There is no chaotic mixing of cases, but the conventions are not fully consistent across all tools.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 3 tools, the server feels thin for a general-purpose 'LSD MCP Server', suggesting an incomplete surface. The lack of descriptions for two tools makes it hard to assess scope, but the count is borderline too few for meaningful coverage of any substantial domain.

    Completeness1/5

    The server is severely incomplete. Based on the tool names, it appears to cover search and execution, but with no descriptions for 'find_trips' and 'run_lsd', there are significant gaps. It lacks any CRUD operations, lifecycle management, or clear domain coverage, making it impossible for agents to perform coherent workflows.

  • Average 1.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 1/5.

    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

  • Behavior1/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    Tool has no description.

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

    Conciseness1/5

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

    Tool has no description.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness1/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Tool has no description.

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

    Parameters1/5

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

    Tool has no description.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose1/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    Tool has no description.

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

    Usage Guidelines1/5

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

    Tool has no description.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior1/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    Tool has no description.

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

    Conciseness1/5

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

    Tool has no description.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness1/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Tool has no description.

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

    Parameters1/5

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

    Tool has no description.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose1/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    Tool has no description.

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

    Usage Guidelines1/5

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

    Tool has no description.

    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 mentions the tool searches for 'possibly relevant links,' which implies it's a read-only operation that returns search results, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like rate limits, authentication needs, result format, pagination, or error handling. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. Every word earns its place with no wasted information, 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.

    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 (a search operation with no output schema and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on result structure, error cases, performance characteristics, or any behavioral context needed for effective use. The description alone doesn't provide enough information for reliable tool invocation.

    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 minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It implies the 'query' parameter is used to search Brave, but with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is 4 for zero parameters; however, since there is one parameter and the description doesn't elaborate on its format, constraints, or examples, it doesn't fully compensate, warranting a score of 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 ('Search') and resource ('Brave'), and identifies the output ('links to a query'). It distinguishes the tool's function from its siblings (find_trips, run_lsd) by focusing on web search. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential alternative search tools, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 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. It mentions 'possibly relevant links' but gives no context about when this search method is preferred over others, what types of queries it handles best, or any prerequisites for use. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

    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

internetdata-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

internetdata-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/lsd-so/internetdata-mcp'

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