Skip to main content
Glama
mcpflow

eRegulations MCP Server

by mcpflow
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a distinct purpose: listing all procedures, retrieving a specific procedure's details, and getting a specific step within a procedure. There is no overlap or confusion between these operations.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent camelCase verb_noun pattern: listProcedures, getProcedureDetails, getProcedureStep. The naming is uniform and predictable.

    Tool Count4/5

    Three tools is slightly on the lower end but reasonable for a focused read-only procedures lookup server. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count is not thin enough to feel incomplete.

    Completeness4/5

    The server covers the essential read operations for procedures and steps. A minor gap is the lack of a search or list steps function, but the core lookup workflow is supported.

  • Average 3.5/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get information', implying a read operation, but does not describe what information is returned, whether there are any side effects, permissions, or error conditions. This is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the verb.

    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 words. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

    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?

    For a simple read operation with two well-specified parameters, the description is adequate but not complete. There is no output schema, so the description should have explained the return format or what information is included for the step. It also lacks usage guidance and behavioral details, leaving some context gaps.

    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 parameters are fully documented. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but since the schema already explains 'procedureId' and 'stepId', the baseline of 3 applies. No additional parameter semantics are provided.

    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 retrieves information about a specific step within a procedure, distinguishing it from the sibling tools listProcedures (which lists procedures) and getProcedureDetails (which likely gets procedure-level info). It uses the specific verb 'get' and identifies the resource precisely, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

    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. It does not mention context such as 'use this when you need step-level details' or exclude cases. With sibling tools available, the lack of usage guidance is a clear gap.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get detailed information' without mentioning error cases, access requirements, or what differentiates 'detailed' from other procedure endpoints.

    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 content. It immediately communicates the operation without unnecessary detail.

    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?

    For a simple single-param retrieval tool, the description covers the core intent, but with no output schema or annotations, it does not explain what 'detailed information' includes or how it differs from getProcedureStep. More context would improve completeness.

    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% with procedureId described as 'ID of the procedure to retrieve'. The description's 'by ID' adds no further meaning or constraints beyond the schema.

    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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific procedure by ID'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools: listProcedures (which lists all) and getProcedureStep (which targets a single step).

    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?

    No explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative mentions. The phrase 'a specific procedure' implies this is for targeted retrieval, not listing, but that is implicit rather than stated.

    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 full burden. It discloses that the tool lists 'all' procedures, implying no filtering or pagination. However, it does not mention return format, ordering, or any read-only guarantees. For a simple list operation, this is acceptable but not rich in behavioral context.

    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 that states exactly what the tool does with no extraneous words. 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?

    Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It clearly states scope ('all available'). A minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly note that the result can be used with sibling tools for details, but this is a slight enhancement rather than a necessity.

    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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully documents that there is nothing to configure. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4 per guidelines. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because none are needed.

    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 action: 'List all available procedures' in the 'eRegulations system.' The use of 'all' distinguishes this from sibling tools that target specific procedures (getProcedureDetails, getProcedureStep). The verb 'list' is precise 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 its use case: when you need an overview of all procedures. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives or exclude cases (e.g., 'for details on a single procedure, use getProcedureDetails'). The guidance is not misleading, but it is implicit rather than explicit.

    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

eregulations-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

eregulations-mcp-server 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/mcpflow/eregulations-mcp-server'

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