Skip to main content
Glama
matematicsolutions

my-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: v0.2.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct aspect of a Malaysian Act: metadata vs. full text. The names clearly indicate which is which, so there is no ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent my_get_<resource> pattern, using snake_case. The verb 'get' is consistent and the resource nouns (act, text) clearly differentiate them.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server is quite minimal. While it covers the core retrieval needs, it feels thin for a legal database, though the narrow scope may justify the small set.

    Completeness2/5

    The server lacks any search or listing capabilities for Malaysian Acts, requiring users to already know the act coordinate. This is a significant gap that will hinder agents without prior knowledge.

  • Average 3.5/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 7 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the source (extracted from official PDF) and the scope (principal Act), but does not disclose limitations such as whether 'full text' includes schedules or what happens for unavailable acts. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage, but not rich.

    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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It communicates the essential purpose and source efficiently. No filler or repetition of annotations/schema.

    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 tool is simple (one parameter, output schema provided, good annotations). The description is adequate as a minimal viable explanation, but it omits usage context (e.g., when to choose this over my_get_act) and does not clarify what 'full text' encompasses. Given the availability of output schema and annotations, this is a clear but not exhaustive description.

    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 schema provides only an example ('e.g. ``883``') for the act_number parameter, not a semantic definition. The description's mention of 'Malaysian principal Act' implicitly clarifies that act_number refers to the act's number, adding meaning beyond the schema. This helps an agent understand how to fill the parameter.

    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 a specific verb ('Fetch') and identifies a clear resource ('full text of a Malaysian principal Act'), which gives a precise purpose. It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool my_get_act, but the name and description imply a focus on text content rather than the act object itself.

    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?

    There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling my_get_act, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and description alone.

    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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns metadata specifically, distinguishing it from text retrieval, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, authorization, or error handling.

    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 clear sentence with no redundant wording. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope without any fluff or repetition of schema details.

    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?

    Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter), the presence of an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is functionally complete for selecting and invoking the tool. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema handles that gap. Some information about when to use vs. the sibling would improve completeness, but it's not essential for a tool this simple.

    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 schema already covers act_number fully as an integer with an example, giving 100% schema description coverage. The phrase 'numeric act coordinate' in the description is essentially a synonym for the schema's type and example, adding no significant new meaning. Baseline 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 fetches metadata for Malaysian principal Acts using a numeric act coordinate. It differentiates from the sibling 'my_get_text' by specifying 'metadata' rather than text, but it does not explicitly reference the sibling or contrast them.

    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 when to use this tool (when needing metadata for a Malaysian act) but provides no explicit guidance about alternatives like 'my_get_text' or exclusions. The 'metadata' keyword hints at the distinction, but explicit when/when-not guidance is absent.

    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

my-eli-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

my-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/my-eli-mcp'

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