Skip to main content
Glama
maniranjan2023

MCP Open Library & File Search Server

by maniranjan2023
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have entirely different purposes—one searches Open Library by author name, the other searches within a local file. No overlap or ambiguity is possible.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tools use the 'search_' prefix followed by a specifier (author vs. in_file), showing a consistent verb-first pattern. Minor variation in specifier type (noun vs. prepositional phrase) is acceptable.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools covering two distinct domains (Open Library and file search), the server feels thin and unfocused. Each domain would benefit from additional tools to be useful, making the count too low for the stated scope.

    Completeness2/5

    The server provides only one operation per domain: author search and in-file keyword search. Missing are common complementary tools like book search by title/ISBN, file listing, or multiple search modalities. The tool surface is severely incomplete for both purposes.

  • Average 3.2/5 across 2 of 2 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 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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It implies a read operation but does not state explicitly that it is read-only, nor does it mention rate limits, error behavior, or side effects. As a tool querying an external API, more detail is needed.

    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 concise sentence with no wasted words. While efficient, it could be slightly more structured, but it is not overly verbose.

    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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, or operational details for an API call, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

    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%, and the description only mentions 'by author name', which minimally clarifies the parameter's purpose. No format, examples, or constraints are given, so it adds little 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?

    Description clearly states the tool searches for books by author name. It uses a specific verb (search) and resource (books), and easily distinguishes from sibling tool 'search_in_file' which searches within a file.

    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 on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'search_in_file' or any other alternatives. Lacks prerequisites or context about when the tool is appropriate.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    Without annotations, the description bears the full burden. It states it returns lines and line numbers, which is good, but lacks details like case sensitivity, partial matching, or handling of large files. The behavior is partially transparent.

    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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and output. No redundant words.

    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?

    For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core function but omits contextual details like case sensitivity, encoding, or binary file handling. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

    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%, but the description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter names. 'filePath' and 'keyword' are not elaborated (e.g., path format, match type). It provides minimal value over the schema alone.

    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 it searches for a keyword within a file and returns matching lines with line numbers. The verb 'search', resource 'file', and output are specific. The sibling 'search_author' helps distinguish it as a file-content search.

    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 on when to use this tool over 'search_author' or other alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites.

    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

MCP-Server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

MCP-Server 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/maniranjan2023/MCP-Server'

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