Skip to main content
Glama
matematicsolutions

be-eli-mcp

by matematicsolutions
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

75%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool serves a distinct purpose: fetching metadata, fetching text, and browsing year listings. No overlap in functionality.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tools follow a 'be_verb_noun' pattern (be_get_act, be_get_text, be_list_year). Consistent prefix and verb usage, though 'year' as a noun slightly diverges from the resource type pattern.

    Tool Count4/5

    With 3 tools, the server is minimal but covers a basic workflow for Belgian legislation. The count is appropriate for a focused domain, though a small set may limit flexibility.

    Completeness3/5

    The server covers metadata retrieval, text retrieval, and year browsing. However, it lacks search or filter capabilities, which are common in legal databases, leaving some discovery gaps.

  • Average 3.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 7 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.

  • 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.

  • This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.

  • 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?

    Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description 'Fetch metadata' is consistent but adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., permissions, limits, or side effects) beyond what annotations provide. The value added is minimal.

    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?

    Single sentence, front-loaded with the main purpose, no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

    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?

    The description is short but adequate given the existence of a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage in the schema. It explains what the tool does and how to identify the act. Could be slightly more detailed about the concept of ELI coordinates, but the schema fills the gap.

    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 baseline is 3. The description hints at ELI coordinates but doesn't add new semantic meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., doc_type enum, date fields, numac). No additional clarification on formats or constraints.

    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 specifies the verb 'Fetch', the resource 'metadata for a Belgian act', and the method 'by its ELI coordinates'. It distinguishes from siblings 'be_get_text' (which likely fetches text) and 'be_list_year' (which lists acts by year).

    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 like 'be_get_text' or 'be_list_year'. It only states what it does without indicating prerequisites or exclusion cases.

    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?

    Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'verbatim consolidated text' but no further behavioral traits; no contradiction.

    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?

    A single sentence of 9 words efficiently conveys the purpose with no wasted 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?

    The description is complete for a simple fetch tool with good annotations, but it lacks usage context to differentiate from sibling tools, and does not explain 'consolidated'.

    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 description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

    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 ('Fetch') and resource ('verbatim consolidated text of a Belgian act'), clearly distinguishing from siblings like 'be_get_act' and 'be_list_year'.

    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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

    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?

    Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat these. The description adds value by specifying that the tool is used to 'discover NUMAC coordinates,' which clarifies the behavior beyond what annotations provide.

    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 sentence that conveys the purpose and outcome without any waste. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it efficient and easy to understand.

    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 (2 parameters, output schema present), the description explains the purpose and the output (NUMAC coordinates) sufficiently. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, and sibling tools provide context. No gaps remain for this listing-oriented tool.

    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?

    Input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (year as integer with example, doc_type as enum). The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Browse a year's listing of a Belgian legislation type' and explicitly mentions the outcome 'to discover NUMAC coordinates'. It clearly states what the tool does but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools be_get_act and be_get_text, though the listing vs retrieval distinction is implicit.

    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 for browsing and discovering NUMAC coordinates, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools are listed but not compared.

    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

be-eli-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

be-eli-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/matematicsolutions/be-eli-mcp'

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