MCP YAML API

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tools have overlapping purposes that could cause confusion, particularly between getUsers, getUsersWithQueryParameters, and getUserWithPathParameters, which all retrieve user data but with different parameters. However, the descriptions clarify the distinctions, such as pagination vs. ID-based retrieval, helping to mitigate misselection.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming is mostly consistent with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., createUser, deleteUser), but there are minor deviations in the longer names like getUsersWithQueryParameters and getUserWithPathParameters, which include additional descriptors. Overall, the pattern is readable and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the count is well-scoped for a user management API, covering essential CRUD operations and additional query functionalities. Each tool serves a distinct purpose, making the set appropriately sized for the domain.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete CRUD coverage for user management, including create, read (with variations for listing and specific retrieval), update, replace, and delete. There are no obvious gaps, and the surface supports full lifecycle operations without dead ends.
Average 3.2/5 across 7 of 7 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?
Annotations indicate this is a mutable (readOnlyHint: false), non-destructive, non-idempotent operation with open-world semantics. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic 'update' action, such as permission requirements, side effects, or response format. It doesn't contradict annotations but adds minimal value.
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 with a single sentence, 'Update an existing user.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It's appropriately sized for its minimal content, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.
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 mutation tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering only basic hints, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral nuances, and output expectations, making it inadequate for effective tool selection and invocation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the schema only defines parameter types without descriptions. The description provides no information about parameters, such as what 'id', 'name', and 'email' represent or their constraints, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update an existing user' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('user'), but it's vague about what aspects can be updated and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'replaceUser' or 'createUser'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'replaceUser' or 'createUser'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.
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?
Annotations provide key behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=false (mutation), openWorldHint=true (flexible inputs), idempotentHint=false (non-repeatable), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds minimal context beyond this—it implies a full replacement of user data but doesn't specify effects (e.g., overwrites all fields, may require permissions) or constraints (e.g., rate limits). With annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description adds some value but lacks operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Replace an existing user.') that is front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 3 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering basic hints), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral implications (e.g., what 'replace' means operationally), and output expectations. For a tool that modifies user data, more context is needed to ensure correct invocation, especially with 0% schema coverage and no output schema.
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%, so parameters 'id', 'name', and 'email' are undocumented in the schema. The description provides no parameter information—it doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., user identifier), whether 'name' and 'email' are new values, or if other fields are affected. This fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving parameters ambiguous.
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 'Replace an existing user' clearly states the verb ('Replace') and resource ('user'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'createUser' (new user) and 'updateUser' (partial modifications), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'deleteUser' (removal). The description is specific but could be slightly more precise about what 'replace' entails versus 'update'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing user ID), exclusions (e.g., not for new users), or comparisons to siblings like 'updateUser' (for partial changes) or 'deleteUser' (for removal). Without this context, an agent might struggle to choose correctly between similar tools.
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 adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false), non-destructive, and open-world (openWorldHint: true), but the description doesn't elaborate on implications like potential side effects (e.g., sending welcome emails) or constraints (e.g., rate limits). It doesn't contradict annotations, but offers little extra insight into how the tool behaves in practice.
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 with a single sentence: 'Create a new user.' It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the tool's complexity as a write operation with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover what happens upon creation (e.g., returns a user ID, sends notifications), error conditions, or how it interacts with sibling tools. For a user creation tool in a system with multiple user-related operations, more context is needed to guide effective use.
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 schema provides no parameter descriptions, but the description doesn't compensate by explaining parameters. However, since there are only 2 parameters (name and email), and their purpose is somewhat self-evident from the tool's name, the baseline is higher. The description doesn't add semantic details, but the simplicity of parameters keeps the score from being lower.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Create') and resource ('new user'), which is clear but basic. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'replaceUser' or 'updateUser', which also modify user data. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what makes this creation operation unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'replaceUser' and 'updateUser' available, it doesn't clarify that this is for initial creation of a user, not modification of existing ones. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing admin permissions or when this operation is appropriate.
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?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations declare, such as authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. However, it doesn't contradict annotations, so it meets the baseline for annotations-heavy tools.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Retrieve a user by ID' is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly concise and well-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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks usage guidelines, detailed parameter info, or output expectations, leaving gaps that could hinder agent selection in a multi-tool 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?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, but the description implies the 'id' parameter is for user identification. It doesn't specify format (e.g., UUID, numeric) or constraints. Since schema coverage is low, the description partially compensates but lacks detailed semantics, aligning with the baseline for minimal param info.
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 'Retrieve a user by ID' clearly states the verb (retrieve) and resource (user), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getUsers' or 'getUsersWithQueryParameters', which also retrieve users but with different approaches (list vs single, path vs query parameters).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for retrieving a single user by ID (vs 'getUsers' for listing multiple users or 'getUsersWithQueryParameters' for query-based retrieval), nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.
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?
Annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), so the bar is lower. The description doesn't contradict these annotations, as 'Retrieve' aligns with read-only and non-destructive behavior. However, it adds minimal context beyond annotations—it doesn't specify if retrieval is paginated, sorted, or limited in scope, which could be useful for an agent. The description is consistent but adds limited behavioral 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 a single, clear sentence ('Retrieve a list of users.') that efficiently states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. There's no wasted text, and it earns its place by providing the essential information in a minimal format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context about sibling tools, return format (e.g., list structure, fields), or any limitations (e.g., pagination). For a retrieval tool with no output schema, more detail on what 'list of users' entails would be helpful, though annotations provide safety assurances.
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 has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, but it implicitly suggests no filtering or customization is required for this retrieval. This aligns with the schema, and with 0 parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't mislead about inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieve a list of users' clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('users'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'getUsersWithQueryParameters' or 'getUserWithPathParameters', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific retrieval method versus others. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'getUsersWithQueryParameters' and 'getUserWithPathParameters', it's unclear if this tool retrieves all users by default, uses a specific filtering method, or serves a different purpose. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context, leaving usage decisions ambiguous.
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?
Annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (destructiveHint: true, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), so the bar is lower. The description doesn't contradict these annotations, and while it doesn't add much beyond them, it implicitly supports the destructive nature by stating 'Delete'. However, it lacks additional context like permission requirements or irreversible consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's high complexity (destructive operation) and lack of output schema, the description is minimal. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, but the description doesn't address return values, error conditions, or user impact. It's adequate as a basic descriptor but incomplete for informed usage.
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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'by ID', which adds meaning by clarifying that the 'id' parameter refers to a user identifier, but it doesn't specify format (e.g., UUID, email) or constraints. This partially compensates for the low coverage but leaves gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a user by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'replaceUser' or 'updateUser' which might also involve user modifications, so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'replaceUser' or 'updateUser', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., user must exist) or exclusions. It's a basic statement with no contextual usage information.
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?
Annotations cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive traits, but the description adds useful context about pagination behavior. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides operational detail beyond them, though it could mention more about response format 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the key information. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (pagination, 2 params), no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose but lacks details on parameter usage, response format, or sibling differentiation, leaving gaps for effective agent use.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters, the description only mentions 'pagination' generically without explaining 'page' and 'limit' parameters. It fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving parameter meaning unclear beyond the basic hint.
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 action ('retrieve a list of users') and resource ('users'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling 'getUsers' (which likely retrieves users without pagination parameters), missing full differentiation.
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 paginated retrieval, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. 'getUsers' or other siblings. It provides some context (pagination) but lacks clear alternatives or exclusions, leaving usage guidelines incomplete.
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:

[![mcp-api-client MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/molavec/mcp-api-client/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/molavec/mcp-api-client)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-api-client MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/molavec/mcp-api-client/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/molavec/mcp-api-client)

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/molavec/mcp-api-client'

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