mcsr-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from player profile to match history, versus analysis, form analysis, scouting, leaderboard, and decay status. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent get_noun pattern, but five tools use different verbs (analyze, scout, compare, find). However, all names still follow a verb_noun structure, making them understandable.
Tool Count5/5
With 18 tools covering player stats, matches, versus, leaderboard, form analysis, and more, the count is well-scoped for the MCSR Ranked domain. Each tool serves a distinct purpose without bloat.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core player profile, match history, versus, leaderboard, weekly races, and advanced analysis (form, scouting, rivals). Missing a player search tool and season-specific leaderboard, but the surface is largely complete for common use cases.
Average 3.8/5 across 18 of 18 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 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 carries the full burden. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, modifies data, or has side effects. As an analysis tool, it is presumably non-destructive, but this is not disclosed.
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 two sentences, with the first sentence clearly stating the purpose and the second listing many output metrics. It is concise but slightly dense; could be broken into bullet points. However, no unnecessary words.
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 complexity and lack of output schema, the description does a good job listing the various return metrics (win rate, ELO delta, streaks, etc.). It is fairly complete in telling the agent what information to expect, though it does not specify the exact structure (e.g., whether results are nested).
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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter-level details beyond the schema; it only provides context on the return values.
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 tool analyzes a player's recent form over their last N matches, with a specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('player's recent form'). It lists detailed return metrics, making the purpose highly specific 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'analyze_session_form' or 'get_elo_history'. It only mentions it is 'designed for AI coaching-style analysis,' which is vague and does not help differentiate.
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 provided. Description does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, or any side effects. Describes outputs but not behaviors.
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?
Description is a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded with purpose and lists key returned data. No redundant text, though slightly long.
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?
For a simple get tool with one parameter, the description covers what is returned adequately. However, lacks behavioral context due to missing annotations.
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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds context about the match ID but does not significantly enhance understanding of the parameter.
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?
Description clearly states the tool gets full details for a specific match by ID and lists specific information returned. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_player or get_versus_matches.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as get_player_matches or get_versus. Description only explains what is returned, not when to choose it.
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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only lists what data is returned but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the main action ('Compare two players side by side') and then lists the included metrics. It is efficient but somewhat lengthy due to the enumeration. Score 4 for being concise yet informative without redundancy.
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 has 3 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description covers the purpose but lacks details about output structure, pagination, or error handling. While the tool is not complex, more context on what the result looks like 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 3 parameters (identifier1, identifier2, season). The description adds no extra meaning beyond listing output fields, so it does not compensate beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool compares two players side by side, listing many specific metrics (ELO, rank, tier, season stats, recent form, head-to-head, per-seed-type win rate). This makes the purpose explicit and distinct from siblings like get_player (single player) or get_versus (likely simpler head-to-head).
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 comparing two players but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, but the context of sibling tools suggests this is for a comprehensive comparison. Score 3 for implied usage with no exclusions.
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 carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists output fields but fails to mention any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or non-destructive nature. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
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?
Single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and output, with no redundant 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?
The description details return fields but lacks explanation of parameter interactions (e.g., before/after ordering, count limits) and error cases. However, given no output schema, it is reasonably complete for a retrieval tool.
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 already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond listing output details, which is already covered. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool retrieves a player's match history with full details, listing specific fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_match (single match) and get_versus_matches (versus another player) by focusing on a player's own history.
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 retrieving match history but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_versus_matches or scout_opponent. No exclusions or contextual recommendations are given.
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?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It states the output content but omits details on data limits, authentication requirements, or return structure, providing minimal behavioral insight.
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 a single, focused sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, though structuring with a list might improve scanability.
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 domain (season history for a player) and the presence of many related tools, the description adequately defines the tool's output but lacks usage context or comparison, leaving room for ambiguity.
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 coverage is 100%, and the description repeats the parameter's intent (player identifier) without adding format hints, examples, or clarification beyond the schema's definition.
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 ('all historical season results for a player'), with explicit details on returned data (final ELO, rank, phase points), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_player' or 'get_elo_history'.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the 18 sibling tools. The purpose is implied but lacks exclusionary context or sibling differentiation.
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 exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or any side effects. It implies a read operation but offers no confirmation beyond the action 'get'.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. It is efficient and direct.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return fields. It could mention sorting order or time format, but the lack of that detail is minor for a simple leaderboard tool.
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?
There are zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, but it does not provide extra context about the absence of parameters (e.g., that it always returns the current week). This is acceptable but not enhanced.
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 tool retrieves the current weekly race leaderboard, specifying the resource and the data fields (top times, player, country, formatted finish time). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_leaderboard' by focusing on the weekly race context.
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 vs alternatives, such as when a more general leaderboard or player-specific history is needed. No context about prerequisites or exclusions is given.
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 exist, so the description must compensate. It describes output content but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or any other behavioral traits (e.g., authentication, rate limits). It is safe but not fully transparent.
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 a single, dense sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. It is front-loaded with the main action and lists contents.
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?
With no output schema, the description lists all major output components. For a simple retrieval tool with two well-documented parameters, it is adequately complete.
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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It does not elaborate on parameter formats or constraints beyond what is in 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 starts with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full MCSR Ranked profile'), listing detailed content (ELO, rank, tier, stats, links) that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_player_matches or get_player_seasons.
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-to-use or alternatives are provided. The description implies this tool is for a comprehensive profile, but it does not state when to prefer it over siblings like get_leaderboard or analyze_player_form.
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 provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the output but does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. It is adequate but not thorough.
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?
One concise sentence with no fluff. Front-loaded with the verb 'Check', and it efficiently lists key return fields. 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?
With no output schema, the description fully explains the return values including decay date, urgency levels, and last played. It covers the essential context for this simple status-check tool, though could mention auth or freshness.
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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter. The description adds information about the output, not the parameter itself, so it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding 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 clearly states the tool checks rank decay status, with specific verb 'Check' and resource 'player's rank decay'. It lists return fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_player or get_rank_context.
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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide any exclusions. The purpose is self-evident, but no guidance on when not to use is given.
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 provided; description is adequate for a read operation ('Get') but does not explicitly state read-only, rate limits, or caching behavior. Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond what is implied.
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?
Two focused sentences: first defines purpose and output, second gives pagination guidance. No filler, well front-loaded.
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?
Adequate for a simple list tool with no output schema and well-documented parameters. Could optionally mention ordering or default behavior, but not necessary.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions; tool description only adds 'Use offset to paginate', providing minimal extra value. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Clearly states the action 'Get' and the resource 'MCSR Ranked global leaderboard'. Lists returned fields (rank, ELO, tier, country, phase points), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_player or get_match.
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?
Includes pagination hint 'Use offset to paginate', but lacks explicit when-to-use or alternatives. Context with siblings implies this is for global ranking, but no direct guidance.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key outputs (neighbors, gaps, milestones) but does not mention assumptions (e.g., player must be ranked) or limitations (e.g., contextSize max). The description is moderately transparent but could be more thorough.
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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists specifics. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
Lacking an output schema, the description adequately explains three concrete outputs. For a simple two-parameter tool, this is mostly complete. However, it omits potential error states or behavior for unranked players, and does not mention pagination limits.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (identifier as username/UUID, contextSize with default 5, max 10). The description adds context about what is returned but not about parameter usage.
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 verb 'Get' and resource 'player's position on the leaderboard with surrounding context', specifying exactly what is returned (neighbors, ELO gaps, milestone distances). It distinguishes well from siblings like get_leaderboard (full list) and get_player (player details).
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 when leaderboard context around a specific player is needed, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like get_leaderboard or get_player. No exclusions or when-not-to-use information is provided.
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 provided, so description must carry full burden. It states read-like behavior (win/loss record) but does not disclose data freshness, caching, or authorization needs. No mention of side effects or limitations.
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?
Single sentence, clearly front-loaded with verb and resource. No unnecessary words. Perfectly concise for the functionality described.
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?
For a simple retrieval tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return content (win/loss record and win rates). Could hint at season filtering impact but not necessary given parameter description already exists.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. Description does not add additional meaning beyond 'two players' which is already captured by required parameter names. No parameter format or usage details provided beyond 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?
Description clearly specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'head-to-head win/loss record', and includes scope 'between two players' and 'win rates for both sides'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_versus_matches' which provides match-level data.
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?
Description implies usage for obtaining head-to-head summary statistics but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as 'compare_players' or 'scout_opponent'. No alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios mentioned.
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 full burden. It lists what the tool returns (ELO, form, H2H, VODs) and implies it is read-only (generating a report). However, it does not explicitly state whether it modifies data, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The behavioral traits are partially disclosed but not fully transparent.
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 a single sentence that efficiently lists all key outputs. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. While dense, it could benefit from bullet points or clearer separation of output items, but overall it earns its length with specific details.
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?
With no output schema, the description must fully explain return values. It enumerates ELO/rank/tier, best time, recent form, H2H record, and VOD links with timestamps. However, it lacks details on the structure or format of the report (e.g., is it a JSON object with specific keys?), leaving some ambiguity. Given the complexity of combining multiple data sources, the description is adequate but not complete.
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 input schema already has clear descriptions for both parameters (targetIdentifier as opponent's ID, myIdentifier as user's ID to include H2H). The tool description adds value by explaining that providing myIdentifier includes a head-to-head record, linking the parameter to the output behavior. With 100% schema coverage, this is a strong addition.
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 tool's purpose: generating a scouting report on a target player. It specifies the verb 'Generate' and the resource 'scouting report', and distinguishes itself from siblings like compare_players and get_player by offering a comprehensive, single-report output combining ELO, form, H2H, and VODs.
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 ('before a match') and mentions the optional myIdentifier for H2H, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives among the many sibling tools. Usage context is implied but lacks clear guidance on trade-offs.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read operation (no mention of side effects) and describes the return structure (summary and timeline). However, it does not disclose potential limitations like rate limits, data freshness, or whether the tool requires authentication, which would be valuable.
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—two sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose, output, and utility. Every word is functional, with no redundancy or filler. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, followed by output details and use cases.
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 absence of an output schema, the description compensates by detailing the return: a summary with peak, trough, delta, streaks, and a full timeline. This is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect. The tool's complexity is moderate, and the description covers the key aspects, though it omits details like pagination or data format.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it frames 'count' as 'last N matches' but doesn't specify defaults or constraints beyond what the schema already states. It does not elaborate on 'identifier' or 'season' beyond their schema descriptions.
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 explicitly states the tool reconstructs a player's ELO trajectory across their last N matches with gains and losses in chronological sequence. It clearly identifies the specific verb (reconstruct) and resource (ELO trajectory), and the scope is well-defined. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, the unique purpose of detailed ELO history is evident.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance on when to use the tool, citing specific use cases like spotting tilt spirals, hot streaks, or sustained momentum. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools, which would help agents decide between alternatives like analyze_player_form or scout_opponent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns detailed match history including seeds, times, ELO changes, and VODs, implying a read-only operation. No mention of authentication or rate limits, but sufficient for a read tool.
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?
Single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every phrase adds value with no redundancy or wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description clearly indicates what is returned (match details with specific fields). Given the tool's complexity (4 params, 2 required) and available context, the description is adequate and leaves no major 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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds context about returned details but no additional meaning or constraints on parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'match-by-match history between two players', listing specific details included. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_versus' (likely summary) and 'get_player_matches' (single player).
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 head-to-head match history but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like 'get_versus' or 'compare_players'. No when-not or alternative naming provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that only wins are returned, the sort order, and the returned fields (time, date, opponent, seed details, VOD link). However, it does not mention limitations like pagination, data freshness, or behavior for empty results.
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 concise: three sentences covering purpose, limitation, filtering, and return fields. No wasted words.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and behavior. It could be more complete by specifying sort order direction or handling of missing PBs, but it is adequate overall.
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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds limited value beyond repeating the seed type filtering option. The description mentions return fields but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.
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 tool finds a player's fastest ranked completions (personal bests) sorted by time, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_player_matches or get_versus by focusing specifically on personal bests.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains that only wins are included and mentions optional filtering by seed type, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals behavioral traits: sorting by ELO-weighted net losses, a limit of 10 results, and return content (win/loss record, ELO context). It does not mention side effects or read-only nature, but these are implied for a query tool.
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?
Two sentences with no fluff: first sentence states the main purpose and sorting, second adds details about limit and output. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description fully explains return format (up to 10 rivals, win/loss, ELO context). Parameters are fully documented in schema. The tool is straightforward, and the description covers all needed 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 coverage is 100% and the description does not add new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It provides context about the output but not about the parameters themselves, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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 tool finds a player's rivals (opponents with a losing record) sorted by net losses weighted by ELO proximity, and explicitly mentions the purpose of identifying matchup weaknesses. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_versus or compare_players.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly indicates when to use this tool (when analyzing a player's weaknesses against multiple opponents) and provides details like returning up to 10 rivals. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 key behavioral traits: sessions are defined by inactivity gaps (default 90 min), it analyzes up to 10 most recent sessions, and it scans a configurable number of matches. It does not mention any destructive or read-only implications, but given the likely read-only nature, this is adequate.
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, each adding value: the first defines the core functionality, the second specifies the output limit. No wasted words. Front-loaded with the main action.
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 complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main behavior and limits. It lists what the analysis includes (wins, losses, etc.) but does not detail the return format. For a tool with these characteristics, it is reasonably complete.
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 input schema covers all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by stating defaults (sessionGapMinutes=90, matchCount=60 max 100) and output limits (up to 10 sessions). This helps agents understand parameter behavior beyond the schema descriptions.
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 specifies the tool's function: grouping a player's recent matches into sessions based on a configurable time gap and analyzing each session's performance (wins, losses, ELO change, best run time). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_player_matches (which lists individual matches) and analyze_player_form (which likely does a different analysis).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It implies usage for session-level performance analysis, but lacks explicit when/not-to-use guidance. The context of siblings (e.g., analyze_player_form) suggests differentiation, but it is not articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description adequately discloses that the tool returns a guide and has no side effects. It could be more explicit about being read-only, but the context is clear.
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?
Two sentences: first defines purpose, second gives usage. Extremely concise and well-structured with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (a guide to capabilities). Complete for a meta-tool.
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 baseline is 4. No parameter semantics 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 tool returns a complete guide to the MCP's capabilities, listing all tools and example queries. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are specific data retrieval tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Call this when asked what this MCP can do, what tools are available, or how to use it.' This provides clear, directive usage guidance.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcsr-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/miyakejima/mcsr-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/miyakejima/mcsr-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcsr-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/miyakejima/mcsr-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/miyakejima/mcsr-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/miyakejima/mcsr-mcp'

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