HCM MCP Server for Oracle Fusion Cloud (unofficial)

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct responsibility: schema exploration (describe_resource), module status (get_capabilities), single record retrieval (get_record), resource catalog (list_resources), generic query (query_resource), and server configuration (server_info). No two tools overlap in purpose.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: describe_resource, get_capabilities, get_record, list_resources, query_resource, server_info. The pattern is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the set is concise yet covers the core needs for an HCM API exploration server: metadata discovery, querying, and configuration info. No tool is superfluous, and the count feels well-scoped for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface is complete for read and exploration tasks, providing schema discovery, resource catalog, and data retrieval. However, it lacks mutation operations (create/update/delete), which may be required for full HCM workflows, hence a minor gap.
Average 4/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 17 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 10, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

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 discloses that sensitive fields are redacted unless enabled, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not mention other aspects like permissions, rate limits, or side effects.
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 concise, with two short paragraphs. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds context for the key parameter. It is front-loaded but could benefit from more structure.
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 4 parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the key, expand, and redaction behavior. However, it omits explanations for the 'fields' and 'resource' parameters, leaving gaps. The redaction note adds useful context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. Only the 'key' parameter is explained with an example. The 'expand' parameter is vaguely mentioned ('optionally expanding child collections'), and 'fields' and 'resource' are not explained at all.
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 'Fetch a single record by its key, optionally expanding child collections.' It provides a specific verb and resource, and includes an example for the key parameter (e.g., PersonId for workers), distinguishing it from siblings like list_resources.
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 fetching a single record but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like query_resource or list_resources. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusion conditions 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?
The description discloses that the tool hits a cached endpoint, which is a behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, it does not explicitly mention read-only nature or safety, leaving some 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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Every sentence provides value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, cache behavior, and hints at output structure. It could mention error handling or prerequisites, but is largely sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds little beyond the schema: the parameter 'resource' is mentioned only by name, without specifying valid formats or examples. With 0% schema description coverage, more detail is 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 retrieves a resource's live schema, including attributes, child collections, and actions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_record or list_resources by focusing on metadata rather than 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?
The description implies usage by noting it's the authoritative source for field names in queries, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it.
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 carries full burden. It notes 'Safe' and 'non-sensitive', adding behavioral context beyond empty schema. However, lacks details on idempotency, rate limits, or response guarantees.
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 efficient sentences with no redundancy. First sentence states purpose, second provides usage context. Perfectly front-loaded and concise.
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?
Despite having output schema (not shown), description covers purpose, safety, and deployment context adequately. With 0 param complexity, it is reasonably complete. Could mention return format but output schema covers that.
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?
No parameters, schema coverage 100% (empty). Description adds meaning by specifying what is reported (server configuration, module flags) and that it is non-sensitive, going beyond schema structure.
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 states 'Report non-sensitive server configuration and enabled module flags', a specific verb+resource pair. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'describe_resource', the focus on server config vs. resources is implied.
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?
Description explicitly says 'Safe to call without a live pod connection — useful for verifying a deployment's configuration before exercising the HCM API', providing clear context for when to use. No explicit alternatives, but strong usage guidance.
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 bears full burden. It discloses sensitive field redaction (unless deployment enables them) and filter validation against schema first. This adds useful behavioral context beyond being a read operation.
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?
Concise bullet-style parameter list with front-loaded purpose. Two sentences of behavioral notes at the end. Avoids redundancy and reads efficiently, though could be slightly more structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters, no annotations, and output schema presence, the description covers core query mechanics and redaction but omits pagination behavior (limit/offset), sorting (order_by), and the total_results parameter. An agent would lack guidance on handling large result sets.
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 0%, but description explains 'q' with ADF filter examples, 'fields' with recommendation to use 'describe_resource', and 'expand' for child collections. It ignores 5 other parameters (limit, offset, order_by, resource, total_results), leaving gaps for pagination and ordering.
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 it queries Oracle Fusion HCM resources and brands itself as 'the generic read workhorse.' This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_record' (single record) and 'describe_resource' (metadata), establishing a specific verb+resource+scope.
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?
It recommends using 'describe_resource' to find valid field names and warns about sensitive field redaction. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer siblings like 'get_record' for single-record fetches, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
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 must disclose behavioral traits. It describes that auto-mode modules are probed and refresh triggers re-probing, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, safe, or idempotent, nor does it mention any 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?
The description is three sentences in two concise paragraphs. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds necessary detail without redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 boolean parameter, no required params, output schema present), the description covers all necessary context: what it reports, module modes, statuses, and how to trigger refresh. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, 'refresh', is a boolean with default false. The description adds clear semantic value: 'Pass refresh=True to re-probe.' This fully explains its effect, going beyond the schema's type and default.
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 reports which HCM modules are live on the pod, specifying per-module mode and status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_resource or list_resources, which are generic.
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 the main purpose (reporting live modules) and the refresh parameter for re-probing. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the context of HCM module status is clear enough for appropriate use.
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?
The description discloses key behavioral traits: 'Works offline from a bundled seed list' and 'Filter by search and/or module.' Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It could mention the limit parameter and pagination behavior, but the offline nature is critical and well-stated.
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: two sentences plus a succinct list of parameters. It is front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value—purpose, offline behavior, filtering, and next-step guidance. 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 the tool's moderate complexity, an output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. The description covers the core functionality, offline behavior, filtering, and suggests a follow-up tool. It lacks mention of the limit parameter and pagination, but these are minor omissions for a search-catalog 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for two of three parameters: 'search (matches name/title/description)' and 'module (e.g. core_hr, ...).' The limit parameter is not explained, but it has a default and is optional. The examples for module are helpful.
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: 'Search the catalog of common Oracle Fusion HCM REST resources.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like describe_resource by noting that it works offline from a bundled seed list, making its scope and method explicit.
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?
The description explicitly guides when to use this tool versus an alternative: 'Use describe_resource to confirm a resource's live schema.' This tells the agent that list_resources is for initial discovery from an offline catalog, while describe_resource provides live schema details. It implies that list_resources should be used before describe_resource and not for actual data retrieval.
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:

[![fusion-hcm-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mohantyajitesh/fusion-hcm-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mohantyajitesh/fusion-hcm-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![fusion-hcm-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mohantyajitesh/fusion-hcm-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mohantyajitesh/fusion-hcm-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/mohantyajitesh/fusion-hcm-mcp-server'

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