Xfinity MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting different aspects of Xfinity account management: outages, account overview, bill history, usage details, bill payment, and equipment restart. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_outages, get_account_overview, pay_bill), using snake_case throughout. The verbs are appropriate and descriptive, creating a predictable and readable naming convention.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for managing an Xfinity account, covering key areas like outages, billing, usage, and equipment. Each tool earns its place without being overwhelming or insufficient for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers most core account management tasks, including checking outages, viewing account details, bill history, usage, payments, and equipment control. Minor gaps might include updating account settings or managing payment methods, but agents can likely work around these for common workflows.
Average 3.6/5 across 6 of 6 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'view' implies a read-only operation, but does not specify authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, pagination). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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: 'View past Xfinity bills and payment history for a specified number of months.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, 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.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication or output format. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful, but it meets the minimum for a simple read operation.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'months' parameter documented as 'Number of months of history to retrieve (1–24, default: 6).' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, as it only mentions 'for a specified number of months' without details. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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: 'View past Xfinity bills and payment history for a specified number of months.' It uses specific verbs ('view') and resources ('bills and payment history'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_account_overview' or 'get_usage_details', which might also involve historical data. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.
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 does not mention sibling tools such as 'get_account_overview' (which might include billing info) or 'get_usage_details' (which could relate to billing), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly defined.
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. It mentions what the tool does (check outages) and parameter usage, but fails to disclose key behavioral traits: e.g., whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., list of outages, status codes). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose ('Check for active Xfinity service outages in the service area') and follows with parameter context in a second sentence. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying scope and usage without redundancy or fluff. It's efficient and well-structured.
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 complexity (a service check tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., safety, auth needs), output format, and error conditions. While it covers the basic purpose and parameter usage, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to fully understand how to use the tool effectively, especially without annotations to fill 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?
The description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It explains that the address parameter is optional and defaults to the account's service address, which aligns with the schema's 100% coverage (schema already describes it as 'optional, uses account address if omitted'). No additional syntax, format details, or constraints are provided. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.
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: 'Check for active Xfinity service outages in the service area.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('Xfinity service outages'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_account_overview' or 'pay_bill' by focusing on outage detection rather than billing or account management. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools (e.g., 'check_network_status'), though none exist in the sibling list.
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 provides implied usage guidance: it can check 'a specific address or the account's service address,' suggesting when to use the optional parameter. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use instructions, such as whether it's for real-time status or historical data, or alternatives for non-outage issues. No misleading guidance is present, but the guidance is basic.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('restart') and default target, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this causes service interruption, authentication requirements, rate limits, success/failure indicators, or typical completion time. For a potentially disruptive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's impact and constraints.
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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second clarifies default behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. It's appropriately front-loaded with the main action and target, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.
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 remote device control operation with potential service impact), no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral disclosure, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical information about what happens during/after execution, error conditions, authentication needs, and response format. For a tool that could disrupt network connectivity, this level of documentation creates significant uncertainty for safe agent invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% (deviceId parameter fully described), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by reinforcing the optional nature ('by default') and clarifying the default target ('primary gateway device'), which provides context beyond the schema's technical specification. However, it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid deviceId format or source, keeping it from a perfect score.
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 action ('remotely restart') and target ('Xfinity modem or router'), with additional specificity about default behavior ('restarts the primary gateway device by default'). It distinguishes from siblings like check_outages or get_usage_details by focusing on device control rather than information retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential non-existent siblings like 'reboot_equipment' or 'power_cycle_device'.
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 context through 'remotely restart' and the default behavior clause, suggesting this is for troubleshooting or maintenance scenarios. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to restart vs. check outages first), prerequisites, or warnings about service interruption. The sibling tools are all informational, so no direct alternatives exist, but guidance on pre-checks would be helpful.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates this is a payment operation (implying financial transaction and mutation) and mentions the default payment method behavior. However, it lacks critical details like authentication requirements, whether payments are immediate/processed later, confirmation mechanisms, error conditions, or rate limits.
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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence establishes the core purpose, and the second sentence provides important behavioral context about payment method defaults. No wasted words or redundant information.
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 financial transaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and payment method behavior, but lacks information about what happens after invocation (confirmation, receipt, error handling) and doesn't address security/permission requirements that are critical for payment operations.
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 schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions the default payment method behavior which is already implied by the schema's 'optional, uses default if omitted' description for paymentMethodId. No additional semantic context is provided.
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 specific action ('Make a one-time payment') and resource ('toward the Xfinity bill'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that are all read-only operations (check outages, get account overview, etc.). It precisely communicates a write operation that none of the siblings perform.
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 this tool (to pay a bill) and implicitly distinguishes it from siblings by being the only payment tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like scheduling payments or using different payment methods beyond saved ones.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read operation ('Get') and specifies the scope ('current billing cycle'), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the data is real-time versus cached. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.
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 that packs substantial information about what the tool returns. Every element serves a purpose: the action, scope, and specific metrics. There's no wasted language or redundancy.
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 parameterless read operation with no output schema, the description provides good coverage of what information will be returned. It specifies the exact metrics (GB used, data cap/limit, days remaining, percentage used) and temporal scope (current billing cycle). The main gap is lack of information about authentication requirements or data freshness, but overall it's reasonably complete for this type of tool.
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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameter information, which is correct for a parameterless tool. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.
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 specific action ('Get detailed internet data usage') and resource ('for the current billing cycle'), with explicit details on what information is included (GB used, data cap/limit, days remaining, percentage used). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_account_overview' by focusing specifically on data usage metrics rather than general account information.
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 context ('current billing cycle') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_account_overview' or 'get_bill_history'. No guidance is provided about prerequisites, timing considerations, or when not to use this tool.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('Get') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential errors. The description is accurate but lacks depth beyond the basic operation, missing context that would help an agent use it effectively.
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 that front-loads the purpose and lists key data points without unnecessary words. Every element (verb, resource, data details) earns its place, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It explains what data is returned but does not cover format, structure, or potential limitations. For a read-only tool with no structured output, more context on behavior or response details would enhance completeness.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter information, focusing instead on the output semantics (what data is returned). This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it avoids redundancy.
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 specific action ('Get an overview') and resource ('Xfinity account'), listing the exact data returned (current plan, account balance, due date, service summary). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_bill_history' or 'get_usage_details' by providing a comprehensive summary rather than detailed historical or granular data.
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 implies usage context by specifying what information is retrieved, suggesting it's for general account status checks rather than specific actions like paying bills or checking outages. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives (e.g., 'get_bill_history' for past bills) or any prerequisites, leaving some guidance gaps.
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:

[![mcp-xfinity MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/markswendsen-code/mcp-xfinity/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/markswendsen-code/mcp-xfinity)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-xfinity MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/markswendsen-code/mcp-xfinity/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/markswendsen-code/mcp-xfinity)

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/markswendsen-code/mcp-xfinity'

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