Skip to main content
Glama
mrrodriguez

local-llm-delegation-mcp

by mrrodriguez
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation4/5

    get_local_llm_usage_stats is clearly distinct (usage statistics). query_local_llm and query_local_llm_with_context both query the model, but the descriptions clearly separate them: one for well-defined subtasks without context, the other for tasks requiring additional context (code reviews, docs, refactoring). The usage guidance further reduces ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: get_local_llm_usage_stats, query_local_llm, query_local_llm_with_context. The prefix is always a verb (get/query) and the resource is specific, making the naming predictable and uniform.

    Tool Count4/5

    With 3 tools, the server is on the lower end of the typical range but not thin. The tools cover the core actions for local LLM delegation: querying (with and without context) and retrieving usage stats. It could benefit from a couple more (e.g., listing models or canceling a query), but it feels reasonably scoped for its purpose.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set covers the main workflows of local LLM delegation: basic queries and context-augmented queries, plus usage monitoring. Minor gaps include lack of model list or query cancellation, but these are not critical for the stated purpose of handling simple, well-defined subtasks. The surface is adequate and workable.

  • Average 3.6/5 across 3 of 3 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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits such as read-only safety, resource consumption, or error behavior. It only mentions purpose and examples, omitting any limitations, side effects, or operational caveats.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The description is two sentences with a front-loaded purpose and immediately useful examples. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition.

    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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain how to use the extra parameters or what to expect behaviorally, even though an output schema exists. The agent lacks critical context for proper invocation.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters1/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention prompt, model, task_type, or system_message, and only implies 'context' without defining it. This is a significant gap.

    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 queries the local LLM for subtasks requiring additional context, and names specific use cases (code reviews, documentation, refactoring). The 'with_context' name and the phrase 'require additional context' distinguish it from siblings like query_local_llm.

    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 explicitly says 'Use this for code reviews, documentation, or refactoring' and ties it to the condition of requiring context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

    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 full burden. It tells the agent this is a query operation and mentions cost savings, but does not disclose output format, potential errors, latency, or any side effects. The behavior of the tool beyond 'query' is not explained, which is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

    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 just two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a clear actionable instruction. Every word earns its place with no fluff or redundant details.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    The tool has 5 parameters and an output schema, but the description only covers the simple-subtask context and cost-saving rationale. It does not explain when to use an alternative like query_local_llm_with_context, nor does it elaborate on how to configure the optional parameters. The output schema provides some completeness, but the description itself leaves gaps for a robust agent decision.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters1/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any parameter names or meanings. The agent is left only with parameter names like 'prompt', 'model', 'max_tokens', which are self-explanatory but not explicitly documented. The description adds no semantic value to the parameters.

    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 'Query the local LLM for simple, well-defined subtasks that have already been broken down' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by being the simple, cost-saving option ('Always try this tool FIRST for any simple code generation to save costs!').

    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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Always try this tool FIRST for any simple code generation'. It implies a preference over alternatives for simple tasks, but does not explicitly name exclusions or alternative tools like query_local_llm_with_context. This is clear context without full when-not guidance.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'retrieve' and 'summarize' statistics, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation, but does not disclose any potential side effects, rate limits, or the specific nature of the statistics returned. This adds some value but lacks depth.

    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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no unnecessary information or repetition, making it perfectly efficient.

    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 simple, zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete. It clearly communicates the tool's purpose without needing to explain return values or parameters. The tool's simplicity relative to its siblings means no additional context is required.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, meaning there is nothing for the description to add about parameter behavior. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description is not required to clarify any parameter details.

    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: 'Retrieve and summarize usage statistics for the local LLM MCP server.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling query tools by focusing on statistics rather than querying.

    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 obtaining usage statistics, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling query tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

    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

local-llm-delegation-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

local-llm-delegation-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/mrrodriguez/local-llm-delegation-mcp'

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