Skip to main content
Glama
naeem-gitonga

README Insight MCP

by naeem-gitonga
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

42%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation3/5

    The two tools have overlapping purposes—both summarize README files—but descriptions clarify the distinction: one fetches from a Git URL, the other from a local path. This overlap could cause confusion if an agent misinterprets the source type, but the descriptions provide enough context to differentiate them.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a clear 'readme_' prefix, but the suffixes ('from_git' vs 'summary') are not perfectly parallel. The naming is mostly predictable and readable, with minor deviations in verb usage that do not significantly hinder understanding.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for its purpose of README insight, lacking operations like analysis, comparison, or validation. This minimal set limits functionality and may require agents to work around gaps, making it borderline inadequate for a comprehensive tool surface.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for README insight, covering only fetching and summarizing from different sources. Missing are tools for analyzing content (e.g., checking for sections, links), comparing READMEs, generating summaries in different formats, or validating structure, which are common needs in this domain.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 2 of 2 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

  • 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

  • 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 mentions 'fetch and summarize' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'summarize' entails (e.g., format, length). This leaves gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

    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 that front-loads the core functionality ('fetch and summarize a README') with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

    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 no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., how summarization works, error cases) and doesn't compensate for the absence of structured fields, making it inadequate for full agent understanding.

    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 the single parameter 'repo_url' with a clear description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as URL format constraints or examples, but the high coverage justifies the baseline score of 3.

    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's purpose with a specific verb ('fetch and summarize') and resource ('README from a Git repository URL'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'readme_summary' by specifying the source (Git repository URL), though it doesn't explicitly contrast their differences.

    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 the sibling 'readme_summary' or other alternatives. The description implies usage for fetching READMEs from Git URLs but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

    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 states the tool summarizes a README, implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what format the summary is in, whether it handles errors for invalid paths, if it requires specific permissions, or any rate limits. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic action.

    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 front-loads the core action ('summarize') and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without 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?

    Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the summary output looks like, how it's generated, or any behavioral context. For a tool with one parameter but significant implied complexity in summarization, more detail 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.

    Parameters3/5

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

    Schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema fully documenting the 'path' parameter. The description adds marginal value by clarifying the path can be to a file or directory, but doesn't provide additional semantics like examples, constraints, or edge cases beyond what the schema already states.

    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 'summarize' and the resource 'README from a local path', specifying it can handle both files and directories. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'readme_from_git', which likely handles remote repositories, but the purpose is clear and specific.

    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 its sibling 'readme_from_git' or other alternatives. It mentions the path can be a file or directory, but offers no context on prerequisites, limitations, 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.

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

example-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

example-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/naeem-gitonga/example-mcp'

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