Skip to main content
Glama
mcp360

MCP360 Universal Gateway

Official
by mcp360
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: 'execute' suggests performing an action or running something, while 'search' implies finding or retrieving information. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions, making it easy for an agent to choose the correct tool.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names follow a consistent pattern: they are single, descriptive verbs in lowercase. There are no deviations in style or convention, making the naming predictable and easy to understand across the set.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for a 'Universal Gateway', which implies broad functionality. This limited set is likely insufficient for comprehensive coverage of a gateway's typical operations, such as routing, transformation, or monitoring, making it borderline too few for the apparent scope.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the server's name as a 'Universal Gateway', there are significant gaps in the tool surface. Core gateway operations like configuration management, logging, or connection handling are missing, leaving agents unable to perform essential tasks beyond basic execution and search, which will likely cause failures in broader workflows.

  • Average 1.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 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

  • Behavior1/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are required, what side effects might occur, or any rate limits or constraints.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness2/5

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

    While technically concise with just two words, this is a case of harmful under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide any meaningful information that would help an agent understand or use the tool.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness1/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    For a tool with 3 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about purpose, behavior, parameters, or expected outcomes, making it impossible for an agent to use this tool correctly.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters1/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The schema has 0% description coverage for all 3 parameters (service, tool, parameters), and the description adds absolutely no information about what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they should be used together.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose1/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description 'execute tool' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what it actually does. It provides no information about the action being performed, the resources involved, or how it differs from its sibling 'search' tool.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines1/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or comparisons to the sibling 'search' tool, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior1/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'search tool' reveals nothing about whether this is read-only or destructive, what permissions are needed, how results are returned, pagination behavior, rate limits, or error conditions. It's completely inadequate for a tool with parameters.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness2/5

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

    While technically concise with just two words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to communicate essential information and doesn't front-load critical details. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the single phrase doesn't earn its place by being informative.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness1/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool has parameters and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool searches, how results are structured, what happens when no results are found, or any behavioral context. With no annotations and minimal description, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

    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 fully documents both parameters (query and limit). The description adds zero additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose2/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description 'search tool' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what resource is being searched. It doesn't distinguish this search tool from the sibling 'execute' tool, nor does it clarify what domain or context the search operates in (tools, documents, data, etc.).

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines1/5

    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. There's no mention of the sibling 'execute' tool or any context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or limitations. The agent receives zero direction on tool selection.

    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

unified-gateway-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

unified-gateway-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/mcp360/unified-gateway-mcp'

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