Skip to main content
Glama
mrfentmen

worktree-orbit-mcp

by mrfentmen
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly described, making selection unambiguous.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The tool name 'inspect_worktree_topology' follows a clear verb_noun pattern in snake_case, which is consistent and predictable. As a single tool, it sets a clear convention.

    Tool Count3/5

    The server has only one tool, which is on the low end of typical tool counts. While the narrow scope of inspection might justify a single tool, the server name suggests a broader worktree management capability, making the count feel slightly thin.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool provides a comprehensive inspection summary, but lacks any management operations (create, delete, prune, etc.) that the server name 'worktree-orbit' implies. This leaves significant gaps in the tool surface for full worktree lifecycle coverage.

  • Average 4.2/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 1 commit 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

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • 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

  • Behavior4/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    The description discloses key behavioral traits: it only summarizes (read-only) and intentionally avoids exposing specific Git details. It also implies local-only operation via the cwd parameter description. However, it does not mention output format, error behavior, or explicit non-mutation, so it is 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.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single, well-organized sentence that front-loads the primary action and then lists constraints and exclusions. No redundant information; every clause adds 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?

    With one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's scope and safety characteristics. It could mention the return format or that the operation is non-mutating, but the current text covers the core purpose and constraints sufficiently for a simple read-only summarization 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 coverage for the only parameter (cwd) is 100%, so the schema already documents that it is a local Git repository path. The description reinforces 'local' and adds a no-network-access detail, but this is minimal added 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 summarizes local Git worktree topology and enumerates specific aspects (clean/dirty state, detached worktrees, locks, prunable entries). It also explicitly lists what it does not expose (paths, branch names, hashes, remotes, content), which fully distinguishes its purpose.

    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 usage context: it is for safe, local-only inspection without leaking sensitive information. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, which prevents a 5 since there are no sibling tools to differentiate against.

    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

worktree-orbit-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

worktree-orbit-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mrfentmen/worktree-orbit-mcp'

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