Skip to main content
Glama
matematicsolutions

ie-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: v0.2.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one fetches metadata by coordinates, the other fetches full text. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent naming pattern using 'ie_' prefix and 'get_' verb, making the tool set predictable and easy to navigate.

    Tool Count3/5

    Only 2 tools is minimal for a domain like Irish legislation, but it may be acceptable if the server is intentionally scoped to retrieval by coordinates only.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set covers only retrieval of metadata and text by coordinates, lacking search, list, or other operations that would be expected for a legislation server, leaving significant gaps.

  • Average 3.6/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 11 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • 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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it fetches the 'full enacted text', which confirms the scope but doesn't elaborate on 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.

    Conciseness4/5

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

    The description is concise at one sentence, with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource. Could be slightly expanded to include use case hints without losing conciseness.

    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 presence of annotations and a complete input schema, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It does not mention output details (handled by output schema) or error conditions, but overall is sufficient for a simple data retrieval 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?

    The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no extra semantic information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation.

    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?

    Description clearly states the action ('Fetch') and resource ('full enacted text of an Irish act / SI'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'ie_get_act', which could cause confusion about when to use which.

    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 provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'ie_get_act' or other alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or recommended usage scenarios.

    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 annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, which cover safety and idempotency. The description does not add any behavioral traits beyond these, but it does not contradict them either. No extra context on rate limits, errors, or authentication is given.

    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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundant or filler content.

    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 comprehensive annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context to understand the tool's purpose and usage. No additional details are necessary for this simple metadata retrieval 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?

    The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, with clear explanations for year, number, and doc_type. The description's phrase 'by coordinates' adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

    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 verb 'Fetch', the resource 'Irish act / SI metadata', and the method 'by coordinates'. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'ie_get_text', which likely retrieves the full text, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

    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 metadata retrieval by coordinates, and the sibling tool name suggests an alternative for text. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs the sibling, nor any conditions or prerequisites (e.g., valid year/number range).

    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

ie-eli-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

ie-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/ie-eli-mcp'

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