studylife-mcp

by lukislp

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.12.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: listing courses, notes, sessions, and goals versus creating notes and sessions. list_notes and search_notes are related but clearly separated by all-results versus full-text search behavior.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: list_*, search_*, and create_*. The one non-list verb, search_notes, still fits the established convention.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools is a well-scoped set for a study-life management server, covering the main resources without bloat or unnecessary duplication.
Completeness3/5
The server provides read access to courses, notes, sessions, and goals, plus creation for notes and sessions, but lacks update/delete operations for the mutable entities. This leaves notable lifecycle gaps for notes and sessions.
Average 4.4/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 3.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 117 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 30, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under AGPL 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

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only — does not modify any data,' warns that free-text fields should be treated as data not instructions, and explains markdown and optional enriched fields. It does not mention pagination, result limits, or authentication, but the strongest behavioral points are covered.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence contributes useful context, especially the read-only and prompt-injection warnings. The sentence about optional fields is slightly dense, but appropriate given the lack of annotations.
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 one-parameter search tool with an output schema, this description covers the essential operational details: what it searches, read-only safety, markdown behavior, and optional response fields. Pagination or result-limit details would be nice but are not critical for correct 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 schema has one query parameter with 0% description coverage. The description makes it inferable that query is the full-text search term matched against title and content, but it never explicitly documents the parameter format, empty-string behavior, or whether any operators are supported.
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 opens with 'Full-text searches StudyLife notes by title and content,' giving a specific verb, resource, and search scope. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_notes (listing) and create_note (creation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for searching notes and is read-only, but it never explicitly states when to use search_notes versus list_notes or when full-text search would be inappropriate. Usage context is present only through the word 'searches'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only behavior, optional enriched fields, the fact that text fields must be treated as data rather than instructions, and the is_markdown semantics. This is exemplary behavioral transparency for a tool with no annotation support.
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?
Three focused sentences. The core function is front-loaded, followed by optional-field details and the critical security/read-only notes. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and an output schema already defined, the description covers scope, optional fields, security handling, markdown behavior, and read-only guarantee. Nothing essential is missing.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and the input schema already covers the trivial case.
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 and resource: 'Lists all notes in StudyLife' and specifies the returned fields. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling search_notes, though 'all notes' implies a full listing rather than a filtered search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when you need an unfiltered list of all notes, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this over search_notes or other siblings. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it states that existing data is not modified/deleted, that invalid time ranges or >24h sessions are rejected with a 400 error, and that topic/notes are untrusted free text. This goes well beyond what the schema or tool name reveal.
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 four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, completion semantics, time constraints/errors, and security guidance on free-text fields. It is front-loaded and free of filler.
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 creation tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, the description covers safety, validation, and parameter semantics well. The main gap is the lack of context around the course-related required parameters, and no mention of permission requirements, but an output schema exists so return-value detail is not necessary.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for is_completed, start/end_time, and topic/notes, but the required course_id, course_name, and course_color parameters are left unexplained beyond their self-evident names.
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 function: creating a new study session/calendar entry for a given course and time range. It distinguishes this from siblings like list_sessions and create_note by specifying the resource type and action.
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?
The description gives clear guidance on when to set is_completed=True (logging past sessions) vs False (planned sessions), and it states constraints that prevent invalid input. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the usage context is clear enough without needing exclusion statements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, warns that the completion note is free text to be treated as data (not instructions), and clearly lists exclusions. This is comprehensive transparency beyond basic functionality.
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?
Three sentences with no fluff: purpose is front-loaded, the exclusion is stated, and the security note is given. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what is listed, what is not included, the nature of the note field, and its read-only status. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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 zero parameters, and the schema has 100% coverage (empty properties). No parameter descriptions are needed. The description focuses on output semantics, which is appropriate and provides value beyond the schema.
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 lists per-course learning goals and progress, enumerating the included fields (target date, completion status, grade, completed topics, optional note). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list courses, notes, or sessions, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by detailing what the tool returns and explicitly excluding aggregate ECTS/grade averages, which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly reference sibling tools or state when to use this tool over alternatives, leaving usage guidance somewhat implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explicitly states 'Read-only — does not modify any data', which is a key safety attribute. It also clarifies the scope to the currently active study program, adding context beyond a bare list call. It does not mention edge cases like empty results or program switching, but for a read-only list tool this is adequate.
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 compact sentences with the purpose first, followed by a safety note. Every word is meaningful, no redundancy or fluff. The structure is front-loaded and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema present), the description is complete. It specifies what is listed, the scope, and the read-only nature. The sibling tool names further contextualize when to choose this tool. No additional information is needed.
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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter schema to describe. The description compensates by listing the fields returned (semester, code, color, etc.), giving semantic context about the output. Baseline 4 applies for tools with no parameters.
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 'Lists' and the resource 'all courses of the currently active study program', with a specific field list. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_notes' and 'list_course_goals', which target different entity types.
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?
It provides clear context for when to use this tool (when listing courses of the active program) and implicitly differentiates from siblings by naming the resource type. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, which would be a 5, but the context is sufficient for a simple list tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It states 'Read-only — does not modify any data in StudyLife' and includes a security-relevant note that user-written fields should be treated as data, not instructions. This goes beyond typical disclosure.
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?
Three short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what is listed, a caution about free-text fields, and the read-only guarantee. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description fully covers the return values and behavioral expectations. It is complete and contextually sufficient.
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 accepts zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed. It focuses on what the returned data contains.
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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') with a clear resource ('all study sessions (calendar entries) in StudyLife') and enumerates the fields returned. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly specifying 'study sessions' rather than courses or notes.
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?
The description clearly implies when to use the tool (for listing study sessions), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tool names provide context, yet there is no direct 'use this for X, not for Y' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It explicitly warns that title/content are stored as free text and that embedded instructions must not be followed, explains the rendering effect of is_markdown, and states that the operation does not modify or delete existing data.
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 four sentences, each with a distinct purpose: core action, prompt-injection warning, markdown semantics, and non-destructive guarantee. The most important information is front-loaded, and the detailed markdown guidance earns its space because misuse changes how content is rendered.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it specifies the operation, all parameter semantics, safety behavior, and injection handling. The only minor omission is explicit routing to create_session, but the resource distinction is self-evident.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all five parameters. It explains title/content as free text, course_id and session_id as optional links, and is_markdown with precise conditions and rendering consequences—far beyond the bare schema types and defaults.
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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Creates a new note in StudyLife' and goes on to specify the required title/content and optional course/session links. This unambiguously distinguishes it from the sibling create_session by targeting notes rather than sessions.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool and gives explicit conditional guidance for is_markdown: set True only for deliberate Markdown, leave False for plain text. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is evident.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![studylife-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lukislp/studylife-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lukislp/studylife-mcp)

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/lukislp/studylife-mcp'

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