@mnicole-dev/erezo-mcp-server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.1
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are mostly distinct with clear CRUD actions for contacts and events. The only potential confusion is between list_contacts and search_contacts, as both allow searching contacts, but list_contacts is more comprehensive with filters and pagination while search_contacts is a quick search. This is a minor overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern using snake_case, such as list_contacts, get_event, register_event, and get_me. The pattern is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 11 tools, the server is well-scoped for its apparent purpose of contact and event management. Each tool serves a distinct function, and the count fits within the ideal 3-15 range.
Completeness5/5
The contact domain has full CRUD plus search, and the event domain covers listing, retrieval, registration, and unregistration. get_me provides user context. No obvious missing operations for the intended workflow.
Average 3.8/5 across 11 of 11 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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a key behavioral trait: 'Only provided fields are modified (partial update).' However, it does not mention return values, error handling, permissions, or consequences of omitted fields, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.
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 concise sentences with the primary action front-loaded. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.
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 tool with 25 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It fails to explain return values, failure modes, required prerequisites (e.g., the contact must exist), or any side effects. The partial-update note is helpful but leaves 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters in detail. The description adds a general semantic note about partial updates, which helps interpret all parameters, but it does not add per-parameter meaning 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's function: 'Update an existing contact' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_contact and delete_contact by emphasizing 'existing' and noting the partial update behavior.
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 ('Update an existing contact') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
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 must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context by revealing quota limits (freemium: 20 max, premium: 30/day). However, it does not disclose other important traits such as idempotency, duplicate handling, required fields, or what the response contains.
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, composed of two short sentences. The key action is front-loaded, and the quota information is the only extra detail, earning its place.
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 24 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is a bit thin. It does not mention what is returned on success, failure behavior, or required fields (though the schema covers required fields). It is adequate but minimal for a complex creation 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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions quota limits, which are not parameter semantics.
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 states the specific verb and resource: 'Create a new contact.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_contact, get_contact, list_contacts, and delete_contact, which all have different actions on the same resource.
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 gives contextual guidance by mentioning quota limits, which implies when the tool cannot be used (when quota is exhausted). However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusion criteria.
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?
The description discloses that results are paginated, adding some behavioral information beyond the schema. With no annotations provided, it carries the full burden but does not mention the read-only nature, default ordering, or response structure in detail.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and a key behavioral detail. Every word earns its place with no 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?
The description covers the main listing behavior and pagination but lacks details about the response shape or any side effects. Given the schema documents parameters well, it is adequate but with gaps around output structure.
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?
All six parameters have descriptions in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description summarizes search, status, and sorting parameters in plain language but adds no new semantic detail beyond the 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 lists contacts with optional search, filtering, and sorting, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from get_contact and mutation tools, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling search_contacts, preventing a perfect score.
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 context: use this tool when you need a paginated list of contacts with optional filters and sorting. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives like search_contacts, but the usage situation is evident.
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 behavioral burden. It discloses that only the first page of results is returned, which is useful. However, it doesn't explicitly state read-only status, authentication needs, or result ordering. The mention of 'quick' is vague. The pagination behavior is a positive addition but not comprehensive.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Every word contributes: 'Quick search' conveys the action and style, and 'first page' adds a key behavioral detail. No fluff or 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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description notes pagination but doesn't explain the return structure or how to access subsequent pages. It's adequate but lacks detail on result format, which would be needed absent an output schema or annotation support.
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% for the single query parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the query matches name, email, and company, which mirrors the schema's explanation. It adds no additional syntax or formatting details beyond what the schema provides.
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: 'Quick search across contacts by name, email, or company.' It specifies the resource (contacts) and the search fields, distinguishing it from list_contacts (listing all) and get_contact (fetching by ID).
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 use for searching contacts by keyword but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like list_contacts for browsing or get_contact for a specific known contact. The context 'quick search' hints at its niche but lacks explicit exclusionary guidance.
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 only states the core action without disclosing side effects, error behavior, idempotency, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutation tool, this is a notable gap.
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 with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and target, making it highly scanable.
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?
The tool is simple with one well-documented parameter and no output schema. The description adequately conveys the core purpose, but it lacks behavioral context such as prerequisites or consequences, which would be expected for a mutation tool without 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% (the parameter 'id' is described as 'Event ID to unregister from'). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('registration for an event'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool register_event. It also scopes the action to the current user, which is precise.
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 clearly implies when to use the tool (when you want to cancel a registration) and implicitly differentiates from register_event. However, it does not explicitly state prerequisites (e.g., user must be registered) or alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
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 burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of permanence ('Permanently delete'), which is valuable. However, it does not mention side effects on related data (e.g., events or registrations), authentication requirements, or error behavior, leaving some opacity.
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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It immediately communicates the action, target, and required identifier, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and how to invoke it. It lacks explicit mention of consequences (e.g., cascade deletions) but remains sufficient for the tool's low complexity.
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 already fully documents the single parameter (id) as the 'UUID of the contact to delete'. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so it receives the baseline score for high schema coverage.
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 a specific action ('delete') on a specific resource ('contact') with a precise identifier ('UUID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_contacts, get_contact, and update_contact.
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 (delete a contact when you want to remove it) but does not explicitly describe when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The word 'permanently' hints at irreversibility but no explicit guidance is given.
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 behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the action and target, but does not mention what 'detailed information' includes, error behavior (e.g., 404 if not found), or any read-only guarantees. Minimal behavioral context is given.
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, directly states purpose and key parameter, no filler. Perfectly concise and 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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description adequately covers the tool's purpose. It could mention the return format or error cases, but given the low complexity, it's nearly 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?
The input schema has full coverage (100%) with the 'id' parameter described as 'UUID of the contact'. The description's 'by its UUID' reinforces this but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. 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's function: retrieving detailed information for a specific contact by UUID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_contacts and search_contacts by emphasizing 'specific' and 'UUID'.
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 implies when to use it: when you have a contact's UUID and need detailed information. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear given the sibling tool names.
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 must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It uses the verb 'Get,' which implies read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state whether it has side effects, error behavior, or what 'detailed information' includes. This is adequate but not rich.
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: 'Get detailed information about a specific event by its ID.' It clearly states the action and object without 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?
For a simple 1-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool does and how to invoke it. It could elaborate on return structure, but given the low complexity, it is largely 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the 'id' parameter as 'Event ID'. The description adds only the phrase 'by its ID,' which rephrases the parameter rather than adding new meaning. 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 'Get detailed information about a specific event by its ID' clearly specifies the verb (Get), the resource (event), and the scope (specific event by ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_events, which would list multiple events.
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 clearly indicates usage context: use this tool to retrieve details for a single known event. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the specificity of 'by its ID' implies when to choose this over list_events.
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?
The description discloses that the operation returns paginated results and that filters are optional. However, since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden; it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior or any permission requirements, though 'list' implies it.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Each sentence adds necessary information: what it lists and how results are returned (paginated). No redundant wording.
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 output schema, the description does not specify the structure of returned events, but it covers the core purpose, filters, and pagination. For a simple list tool with optional filters, this is reasonably complete, though a note about default ordering or fields could improve it.
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 provides full descriptions for all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual grouping by mentioning 'date range' (combining startDate and endDate) and clarifies that filters are optional, which adds slight value 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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'upcoming events', and explicitly mentions optional filters by organizer, department, or date range. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_contacts' and 'get_event'.
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 implies the tool is used to list events, with optional filters. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like 'get_event' for a single event or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool references 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose failure conditions (cancelled, past, full), which is valuable, but it doesn't mention what happens on success, idempotency, or whether the user is already registered. This is acceptable but not rich.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and a key constraint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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, one-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose and the main failure conditions. It doesn't explain return values or side effects, but for a registration action this is often sufficient. Slight gap on idempotency and prerequisites, but overall adequate.
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 already provides a description for the only parameter 'id' (Event ID to register for), achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so 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 action ('Register the current user') and the target resource ('an event'), differentiating it from sibling unregister_event. It also specifies failure conditions, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 communicates when to use the tool by listing failure conditions (cancelled, past, full), suggesting use only for valid upcoming events with capacity. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough.
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 itself must communicate safety and behavior. The verb 'Get' suggests a read-only operation, and 'current authenticated user' implies authentication requirements, but the description doesn't explicitly state side-effect freedom or error cases. It provides acceptable but not extensive behavioral transparency.
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 the function and key output fields without any extraneous content.
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?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately specifies the return content (profile fields) and the tool's scope. There are no nested objects or additional complexity that would require more explanation.
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 accepts zero parameters; the input schema is an empty object with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but since there are no parameters, the baseline 4 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 uses the verb 'Get' with a specific resource ('current authenticated user's profile information') and enumerates contained fields (name, email, company, roles). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools dealing with contacts and events.
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 implies the tool should be used when the agent needs the caller's own identity/profile. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but sibling tool names make the differentiation obvious, and the context 'current authenticated user' is clear.
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:

[![erezo-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mnicole-dev/erezo-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mnicole-dev/erezo-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![erezo-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mnicole-dev/erezo-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mnicole-dev/erezo-mcp-server)

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/mnicole-dev/erezo-mcp-server'

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