Skip to main content
Glama
luquitared

MCP Server Boilerplate

by luquitared
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript

Server Quality Checklist

42%
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: 'get-mcp-docs' is for server creation/development, while 'hello-world' is for user interaction/greeting. There is no overlap or ambiguity in their functions.

    Naming Consistency2/5

    The naming is inconsistent: 'get-mcp-docs' uses kebab-case with a verb-object structure, while 'hello-world' uses kebab-case but is a noun-phrase without a clear action verb. This mixing of conventions reduces predictability.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, this server feels too thin for a 'boilerplate' purpose, which typically implies foundational or example functionality. The count is insufficient to demonstrate meaningful coverage or utility.

    Completeness2/5

    For a boilerplate server, there are significant gaps: no tools for configuration, testing, deployment, or common MCP operations like listing resources. The surface is severely incomplete for development or example use cases.

  • Average 2.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored. Lowest: 1.4/5.

    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

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • 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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Make an MCP server' suggests a creation/write operation, but the description doesn't clarify whether this is a read, write, or configuration operation, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions needed, or response format.

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

    Conciseness2/5

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

    While the description is brief (3 words), this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single sentence doesn't earn its place by providing meaningful information beyond the tool name.

    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?

    Given no annotations, no output schema, and a description that fails to explain what the tool does or how to use it, this is completely inadequate. The description doesn't compensate for the lack of structured information about this tool's behavior and purpose.

    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% (the single parameter 'name' has a clear description in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already documented in the input schema.

    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?

    The description 'Make an MCP server' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get-mcp-docs' without clarifying what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being accessed or what operation is performed, and it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'hello-world'.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or comparison to the sibling tool 'hello-world', leaving the agent with no usage direction.

    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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Say hello to the user' implies a simple, read-only output operation, but it doesn't specify what the tool returns (e.g., a greeting string), any side effects, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured behavioral hints.

    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 ('Say hello to the user') that directly states the purpose without any waste. 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.

    Completeness2/5

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

    Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a formatted greeting), which is critical since there's no output schema. For a basic tool, more context on behavior and output is needed to be fully helpful.

    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 doesn't mention parameters, but the input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the single parameter 'name'. Since schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to compensate for low coverage.

    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 'Say hello to the user' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('say') and target ('hello to the user'). It's not tautological with the name 'hello-world', which is more generic. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get-mcp-docs', which appears unrelated, 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. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. With a sibling tool 'get-mcp-docs' that seems unrelated, there's no explicit or implied comparison, leaving 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

duckduckgo-image-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

duckduckgo-image-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/luquitared/duckduckgo-image-mcp'

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