query-ptax-bcb
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.0.0
- Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: individual date lookup, date-range series lookup, and latest available rate. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.
Naming Consistency5/5All tool names follow the same get_ptax_by_* and get_ptax_latest pattern, with consistent snake_case and a clear verb-noun structure. The naming is predictable and readable.
Tool Count5/5Three tools is well-scoped for a focused PTAX exchange-rate server. Each tool covers a distinct query mode without unnecessary bloat or missing core access.
Completeness5/5For a read-only USD/BRL PTAX exchange-rate server, the surface is complete: specific date, date range, and latest rate are all covered. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations within the stated domain.
Average 3.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 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.jsonto 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
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden. It correctly communicates that this is an official, closing, read-only rate lookup. Yet it does not mention edge cases such as no published rate within the lookback window, weekend/holiday behavior, or the expected output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, the target resource, the official nature of the rate, the currency pair, and the authoritative source. There is no redundant or extraneous wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple optional-one-parameter tool with high schema coverage, the description gives enough clarity about what the tool returns and its source. The main gap is the absence of return format details and edge-case behavior, which would matter more for a more complex tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description, including default, maximum, and exclusive minimum. The tool description itself does not need to add parameter details because the schema already does the necessary work, supporting the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the most recent official closing USD/BRL PTAX exchange rate' and identifies the source (Banco Central do Brasil). The word 'latest' clearly implies the tool's scope compared to date/period siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling tools, so it does not fully distinguish itself in the description itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool: when the most recent PTAX rate is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_ptax_by_date or get_ptax_by_period. The agent must infer the selection logic from the tool name and context.
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 burden. It adds useful context like 'official closing' and 'Banco Central do Brasil', but it does not disclose edge-case behavior for non-business days, availability, or output format. This makes the description adequate but not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It names the provider, the rate, the asset pair, and the scope without repeating schema information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description provides enough information for source, scope, and purpose. It would benefit from stating behavior on non-business days and the expected return value, especially since no output schema is provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully documents the single parameter with name and pattern. The description adds little beyond restating that the date is specific, so the schema remains the primary source of parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Get'), a clear resource ('official closing USD/BRL PTAX exchange rate'), and a specific scope ('for a specific date'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools by_period and latest.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for a specific date' implies this is the tool to use for a single-day lookup, and the sibling names indicate period/latest alternatives. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this over the other tools or when to exclude them.
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?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that the series covers business days only and represents the official closing rate from Banco Central do Brasil. With no annotations to cover the safety profile, some gaps remain: it does not mention response shape, date-boundary behavior, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence that communicates the resource, source, scope, and period. Every part adds information and there is no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter date-range fetch with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It does not spell out the return format, but the concept of an exchange-rate series is self-evident enough that an agent can invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents both parameters with names, formats, and regex patterns, giving 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('official closing USD/BRL PTAX exchange rate series'), and pins down its scope with 'for each business day in a date range.' This distinguishes it from the single-date and latest-rate siblings, though it does not name them explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for each business day in a date range' gives clear context: use this tool when you need a multi-day series. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or point to alternatives like get_ptax_by_date or get_ptax_latest.
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:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/mastermils/query-ptax-bcb'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server