Skip to main content
Glama
metehan777

AlsoAsked MCP Server

by metehan777
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation3/5

    The tools have overlapping purposes, as both 'search_people_also_ask' and 'search_single_term' appear to retrieve PAA questions, with the latter described as a 'convenience method' for single terms. This creates ambiguity about when to use each, though the descriptions provide some differentiation. The 'get_account_info' tool is clearly distinct, focusing on account metadata.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case, such as 'get_account_info', 'search_people_also_ask', and 'search_single_term'. This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to parse, with no deviations in naming conventions.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 3 tools, the set feels thin for a server focused on PAA search functionality, as it lacks operations like filtering, saving results, or managing search history. The count is too low to adequately cover the domain, making it seem incomplete for practical use.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for a PAA search domain, offering only basic search and account info retrieval. Missing are essential operations such as updating search parameters, deleting or exporting results, or handling batch searches, which limits agent workflows and creates dead ends.

  • Average 3.3/5 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

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • 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 carries the full burden. It states it 'gets' information (implying a read operation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

    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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

    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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like response format or error handling, which are important even for simple tools, especially with no annotations to fill gaps.

    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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is fine, but it does specify the types of account information retrieved (credits, plan details, usage statistics), adding some semantic context beyond the empty schema.

    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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'account information', specifying what data is retrieved (credits, plan details, usage statistics). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools, which appear unrelated (search tools vs account info).

    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 alternatives or in what context. The description only states what it does, not when it should be used, leaving the agent without usage direction.

    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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions it's a 'convenience method' which suggests simplicity, but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what the search returns (format, pagination, etc.). For a search tool with 6 parameters, this is inadequate.

    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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and key constraint (single term). Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the main action.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    For a search tool with 6 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what PAA questions are, what format results return, how geographic targeting works with region/language parameters, or the implications of the depth parameter. The 'convenience method' hint is helpful but doesn't compensate for missing context.

    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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond implying 'single term' focuses on the 'term' parameter. This meets the baseline when schema coverage is high, but doesn't provide additional value like explaining parameter interactions or constraints.

    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 verb ('Search for') and resource ('PAA questions'), specifying it's for a single term. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_people_also_ask' - both appear to search PAA questions, though this one is described as a 'convenience method' which hints at a simpler alternative.

    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 context by calling it a 'convenience method' for single-term searches, suggesting it's simpler than alternatives. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus 'search_people_also_ask' or provide clear exclusions or prerequisites for usage.

    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 carries the full burden. It mentions the tool returns hierarchical question data, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's a read-only or mutative operation. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

    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 two sentences with zero waste, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the return type. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

    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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose and return data. However, it lacks details on output format, error conditions, or behavioral traits, leaving gaps for an AI agent to fully understand how to use it correctly.

    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 all 8 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

    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 specific action ('Search for'), resource ('People Also Ask' questions), and outcome ('Returns hierarchical question data from Google PAA'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_account_info' and 'search_single_term' by focusing on hierarchical PAA data rather than account info or single-term search.

    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 obtaining hierarchical PAA data related to search terms, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_single_term' or provide any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is inferred rather than clearly defined.

    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

alsoasked-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

alsoasked-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/metehan777/alsoasked-mcp'

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