Skip to main content
Glama
mimeCam

DevBrain

by mimeCam
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

75%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one fetches full article content from a specific URL, while the other queries a knowledge base with a search query and optional tags. There is no functional overlap or ambiguity between these operations.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (read_full_article, retrieve_knowledge) with consistent snake_case formatting. The naming conventions are predictable and semantically appropriate for their functions.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels severely under-scoped for a system described as a 'developer's brain' knowledge base. A comprehensive knowledge system would typically need more operations like searching, filtering, listing, or managing knowledge entries beyond just retrieving content and querying.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is incomplete for a knowledge base system. While it provides retrieval of specific articles and knowledge queries, it lacks essential operations like listing available articles, searching by metadata, updating knowledge, or managing the knowledge base structure. This creates significant gaps for agent workflows.

  • Average 3.3/5 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.

  • 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

  • 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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns content or an error message, but does not cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, network behavior, or error handling specifics. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely involves external requests.

    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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured sections for args and returns. It is efficient with minimal waste, though the 'Returns' section could be more concise by integrating with the main description, as the output schema exists.

    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 (external URL fetching), lack of annotations, and an output schema that only specifies a string type, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation but omits important contextual details like error conditions, performance, or dependencies, which are crucial for effective tool use.

    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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds basic semantics by explaining that 'url' is 'The URL of the article to read.' This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's type information. However, it does not provide details on URL format, validation, or examples, leaving room for improvement.

    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's purpose: 'Returns the full content of an article identified by its URL.' It specifies the verb ('Returns') and resource ('full content of an article'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'retrieve_knowledge', which could have similar functions, so it misses the top score.

    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, such as the sibling 'retrieve_knowledge'. It lacks context on prerequisites, constraints, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone.

    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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the system returns 'relevant information' and describes the output format, but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, response time expectations, or whether queries are cached. The description adds some value about the return format but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

    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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loads the core purpose. The parameter explanations are detailed but necessary given the schema coverage gap. Some redundancy exists in explaining DevBrain as both 'developer's brain system' and the source of articles, but overall the description earns its length with valuable information.

    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 has an output schema (which covers return values), the description appropriately focuses on purpose and parameters rather than return format. It provides good parameter semantics despite 0% schema coverage. For a query tool with a sibling, it could benefit from more explicit differentiation and behavioral context, but it's reasonably complete for its complexity level.

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

    Parameters5/5

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

    With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantic information about both parameters. It explains 'query' as 'the question or ask to query for knowledge' and 'tags' as 'optional comma-separated list of tags to filter or ground the search', including specific examples and the constraint 'Do not provide more than 3 words'. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 tool 'queries DevBrain and returns relevant information', specifying both the action (queries) and resource (DevBrain system). It distinguishes from the sibling 'read_full_article' by focusing on querying rather than reading full articles. However, it doesn't fully explain what DevBrain is beyond 'developer's brain system', leaving some ambiguity about the knowledge domain.

    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 through the mention of 'queries DevBrain' and the sibling tool name, suggesting this is for initial knowledge retrieval while 'read_full_article' is for deeper reading. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives, and doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or specific scenarios where this tool is most appropriate.

    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

mcp-devbrain-stdio MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-devbrain-stdio 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/mimeCam/mcp-devbrain-stdio'

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