junobuild-mcp-server

by nami2111

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. The domain prefixes (auth, changes, config, etc.) clearly separate concerns, and within each domain, tools like apply, list, reject are unambiguous.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tools follow a consistent juno_<domain>_<action> pattern, with occasional noun-only names (juno_docs, juno_status) and both singular and plural forms. Minor variations exist but the pattern is clear.
Tool Count5/5
18 tools cover the main aspects of Juno satellite management (auth, changes, config, functions, hosting, etc.) without being overwhelming. The count feels well-scoped for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core workflows: authentication, config management, changes (apply, list, reject), functions lifecycle, hosting operations, and status checks. Missing are direct user/datastore CRUD or config viewing, but these are out of scope for a CLI-focused MCP.
Average 3.9/5 across 18 of 18 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 44 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
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?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (potential writes), openWorldHint=true (external calls), and idempotentHint=false. The description does not disclose side effects, such as whether the script can modify the Juno environment, produce persistent changes, or require specific permissions. This is insufficient for a tool that executes arbitrary code.
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 a single sentence, which is concise but could be better structured. It conveys core purpose without wasted words, though it could benefit from a brief follow-up on usage scope.
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 complexity of executing arbitrary scripts and the absence of an output schema, the description lacks details on execution environment, expected outputs, error handling, or when to use this tool over sibling tools like juno_functions_build or juno_hosting_deploy. More context is needed.
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%, providing basic descriptions for each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already explains parameters like src, mode, profile, and containerUrl.
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 runs custom JS/TS scripts in the CLI context with access to the authenticated Juno environment. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are specific operations (e.g., deploy, build). However, it could be more specific about what 'CLI context' entails.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description lacks context on scenarios where running a custom script is preferred over using specific Juno commands like juno_hosting_deploy or juno_config_apply.
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 indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the dry-run safety feature but does not disclose batch processing behavior, idempotency issues, or that it runs per environment. It provides some added value but remains incomplete.
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 unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
The description lacks context for a destructive tool: no mention of prerequisites (e.g., after deploy), no description of outcomes, no guidance on when to use with modes or batch parameters. Given no output schema, more detail is needed.
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 description's mention of --dry-run does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Remove' and resource 'stale frontend files' with context 'from your satellite' and condition 'no longer in build output'. It is specific but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like juno_hosting_clear.
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 mentions using --dry-run for preview but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., juno_hosting_deploy or juno_hosting_clear), nor any scenarios where it should not be used.
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?
Annotations already indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and lack of idempotency. The description adds no behavioral context beyond parameter options, failing to disclose side effects, authentication needs, or state changes beyond basic function.
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?
A single sentence that efficiently conveys the main action and two optional features. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 description covers the primary action but omits return value or post-publish behavior. With no output schema, some description of expected output or next steps would improve completeness. Adequate for a tool with detailed schema.
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 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description hints at two key options (noApply, src) but adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 applies.
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 identifies the tool as publishing new versions of serverless functions to a satellite, with optional behaviors (pending change, custom WASM path). It distinguishes from siblings like juno_functions_build (builds) and juno_functions_upgrade (upgrades).
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 publishing functions but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or preferred contexts are mentioned.
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 indicate non-readonly and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context about source directory, batch parallelism, and options for clearing/pruning. However, it does not disclose potential consequences like downtime or overwriting, which would be expected for a deployment tool.
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: first sentence states the core purpose, second lists key features. No wasted words, appropriately front-loaded.
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 description lacks information about return values (no output schema), prerequisites, and post-deployment behavior. For a tool with 14 parameters, it is somewhat terse but covers the primary action adequately.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters adequately. The description briefly echoes batch, clear, and prune but adds no new semantic meaning. Baseline of 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 verb (Deploy), resource (app's frontend files to your satellite), and scope (reads from source directory). It distinguishes from sibling tools like juno_hosting_clear and juno_hosting_prune by mentioning them as sub-actions.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists supported features but fails to differentiate from siblings like juno_functions_publish or juno_config_apply, nor does it 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?
Annotations are all false, so no contradiction. The description adds auto-detection behavior but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting old builds) or other traits like rate limits. Basic but not rich.
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 with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and the language support list is clear. Perfect conciseness.
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 no output schema and 4 parameters, the description is somewhat complete but lacks information about build outputs, prerequisites (e.g., project must be initialized), or error scenarios. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds the key detail that language auto-detection occurs if unspecified. This provides meaningful context beyond the schema descriptions, though it doesn't elaborate on each parameter's syntax.
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 it builds serverless functions and lists supported languages. It distinguishes from siblings like publish and eject, but does not explicitly differentiate them, so slightly below perfect.
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?
It implies usage before publishing but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives. No exclusions or context for language selection is given, making it adequate but not helpful.
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 declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about scaffolding boilerplate but does not disclose side effects like file overwriting or location. Description is consistent with annotations but adds limited behavioral 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?
Two sentences with no wasted words, front-loaded with action and resource. Efficient and clear.
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?
For a simple scaffold tool with one parameter and good annotations, the description covers core purpose and language options. It lacks detail on output location or overwrite behavior, but annotations fill some gaps. Reasonably complete.
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% and includes enum for lang. The description lists the same language options ('Rust, TypeScript, or JavaScript') reinforcing but not adding new meaning beyond the schema.
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 'generate' and resource 'required files for serverless functions', with language options. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning it's an initialization step (alias: init). However, it does not explicitly contrast with other juno_functions tools.
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 as a first step ('to begin developing'), but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no when-not-to-use. The alias helps, but guidance is minimal.
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 indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent. The description adds that a snapshot can be optionally created, implying reversibility. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like potential downtime, error states, or what happens to old functions.
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, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, listing methods, and noting an optional feature. It is front-loaded with the purpose and wastes no words.
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 description covers the core action and key options, but given the tool has 13 parameters and no output schema, it lacks detail on what happens post-upgrade, error handling, or interaction with other tools. Some behavioral context is missing.
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 all 13 parameters have individual descriptions. The tool description adds summarized context (three WASM sourcing methods) but does not address the majority of parameters (e.g., mode, retry, progress). The description adds marginal value beyond the schema.
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 upgrades satellite serverless functions, lists three specific methods (local WASM, CDN releases, default build output), and mentions optional snapshot creation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like build or publish by focusing on the upgrade action.
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 through the listed methods but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like juno_functions_build or juno_functions_publish. No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are provided.
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 declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds value by specifying what is displayed (profile, access key, links) and implies a safe, informational operation. No contradictions.
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 and usage. No extraneous information, every sentence serves a clear role.
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 rich annotations and complete schema, the description is adequate for understanding the tool's role. Could be improved by mentioning behavior when not authenticated, but overall sufficient.
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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add parameter-specific context, but this is acceptable per baseline scoring. No additional guidance on how parameters affect output.
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 it displays authentication details (profile, access key, links), distinguishing it from sibling action tools like 'deploy' or 'apply'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from 'juno_status', which might be a similar status tool.
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 advises using this tool to verify authentication before operations requiring credentials, providing a clear usage context. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the guidance is sufficient for the typical use case.
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 indicate this is not read-only and not destructive. Description adds that it applies the config but lacks details on side effects (e.g., service restarts) or prerequisites (e.g., valid config file). No contradiction with 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action. No redundant information; every word serves a purpose.
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?
Completes the purpose and usage well, but lacks mention of return values or error handling. Since no output schema, a brief note on success/failure would improve completeness.
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 100%, so all parameters are already described. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema examples of settings. 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?
Clearly states the action (apply config) and resource (satellite), with specific examples of settings that require this step. Differentiates from sibling tools like juno_config_init.
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?
Explicitly says 'required after modifying settings' and lists examples, providing clear context on when to use. Does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is strong.
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 mark the tool as destructive and not read-only. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying that user-uploaded files from custom collections are not affected, which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with 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 extremely concise with two sentences. It front-loads the key action and scope, and every word adds value. No fluff or redundant information.
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 destructive nature, optional parameters, and lack of output schema, the description provides essential context about what is removed and what is preserved. However, it does not explain behavior across different environments (production, staging, development) or the effect of specifying 'fullPath', but these are somewhat covered by the schema.
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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning or guidance for the parameters (mode, profile, fullPath, consoleUrl, containerUrl) beyond what the schema already provides.
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 action ('Remove') and the specific resource ('frontend files (JS, HTML, CSS, etc.) from your satellite'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'juno_hosting_deploy' and 'juno_hosting_prune' by specifying what is removed and what is not (user-uploaded files).
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 implicitly indicates usage by stating it removes only deployed app assets and not user-uploaded files, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'juno_hosting_prune' or other sibling tools. No 'when-not' or alternative recommendations are provided.
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 readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds value by mentioning what is shown (health, deployment status) and hints at additional unspecified information ('and more'), which is acceptable for a status tool.
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, well front-loaded, and every word provides value. No wasted language, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 simplicity (4 optional parameters, no required, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It could benefit from specifying what 'more' entails, but the annotations fill the gaps in behavioral 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning each parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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: to check the status of modules (satellites, orbiters) and shows health and deployment status. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like juno_auth_status or juno_changes_apply.
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 when to use it (to check module status), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. There is no comparison to siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
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 indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining the default filtering and scope, but does not cover return format or pagination limits.
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, front-loading the main purpose, with no redundant information. Every sentence contributes value.
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 description covers the main behavior and key flags, but lacks details on pagination limits (implied by 'all' schema), response format, and explanation of 'mode' and 'profile' parameters.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the meaning of 'all' and 'every' and notes the default, providing marginal additional context.
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 verb 'List' and the resource 'changes to your module', distinguishing it from sibling tools like juno_changes_apply and juno_changes_reject which perform mutations.
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 default behavior (only submitted changes) and when to use the --all and --every flags. However, it does not explicitly compare to 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.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe read operations. The description adds context that the emulator version is shown only if running, which is useful behavioral information beyond the 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 two sentences long, concise, and front-loaded with the core action. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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 description lacks specification of the output format or what exactly is returned (e.g., version numbers, strings). Given no output schema, the description should clarify the return value to fully inform the agent. It is adequate but not complete.
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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema already fully documents the parameter set.
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 explicitly states the tool shows current versions of Juno CLI and emulator (if running), providing a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like juno_auth_status or juno_changes_apply which serve different purposes.
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 checking versions and mentions the --version flag, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Usage guidance is implied but not fully explicit.
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 indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior with possible side effects. The description adds context about optional snapshot and hash verification, which are behavioral details beyond annotations. However, it does not elaborate on the openWorldHint 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler words. It efficiently conveys the primary action and key optional features, earning every word's place.
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?
For a tool with 6 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description concisely covers the essential action and optional behaviors. It is adequate but could mention that the change ID must refer to a previously submitted change.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only mentions 'its ID' and optional snapshot/hash, which repeats schema info without adding new meaning beyond the structured fields.
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 action ('Apply a submitted change by its ID') and distinguishes from siblings like juno_changes_list (list) and juno_changes_reject (reject). It also highlights optional behaviors (snapshot, hash verification), making the specific resource and verb unambiguous.
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 context for use is clear—apply a submitted change—but there is no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to alternative tools. The description implies usage for applying changes but lacks exclusions or prerequisites.
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 indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds value by explaining that rejection prevents application and optionally verifies hash integrity. No contradictions with 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no extraneous information. Highly concise and efficient.
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?
For a rejection tool with destructive side effects, the description explains the primary behavior. Lacks details on reversibility or prerequisites, but is sufficient given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations.
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 baseline is 3. The description mentions optional hash verification, adding context beyond the schema, but does not elaborate on other parameters. Overall, minimal added value over schema.
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 action ('Reject a submitted change by its ID') and the effect ('prevents the change from being applied'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like juno_changes_apply and juno_changes_list by specifying a rejection action.
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 when to use the tool (to prevent a change from being applied), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It is clear but lacks explicit guidance compared to siblings.
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 provide no destructive hint, and description adds key behavior: non-interactive (avoids create-juno CLI) and uses Vite. This goes beyond 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?
Two sentences with no wasted words; front-loaded purpose and critical nuance about non-interactivity.
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?
Fairly complete for a scaffolding tool with no output schema. Could mention that it creates files in a new directory, but not essential.
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?
Description does not elaborate on parameters beyond what schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, 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 it scaffolds a new Juno project using Vite and adding Juno SDK/config, distinguishing it from sibling tools like juno_auth_status or juno_config_apply.
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 when to use (creating a new project) but lacks explicit when-not or alternatives. However, no sibling tool overlaps, so context is clear.
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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the source (GitHub repo) and naming convention, but does not detail response format or error behavior. Value added but not rich.
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?
Three concise sentences: purpose, source URL, naming convention. Front-loaded with critical info, 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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with strong annotations, the description covers source, naming, and reference. It lacks response format (e.g., raw markdown or HTML), but is adequate for a documentation fetch 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with enum list. Description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the underscore naming pattern and folder hierarchy relationship (e.g., build_authentication), which helps agents understand topic structure.
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 Juno documentation from GitHub repo' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are action-oriented (e.g., deploy, build), as this is the only documentation retrieval tool.
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 provides clear context: the documentation source URL and the underscore naming convention that mirrors folder hierarchy. While it doesn't explicitly state when-not to use or offer alternatives, the context is sufficient for an agent to understand 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?
Discloses default behavior (preview) and writeFile option. Aligns with annotations (idempotent, non-destructive). No contradictions; adds meaningful context beyond 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by actionable workflow. 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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains purpose, options, and follow-up tool. Could mention return value format, but adequate.
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?
Schema covers all 8 parameters (100%). Description adds workflow context (preview/write, multi-env) beyond schema definitions, justifying an above-baseline score.
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 generates a juno.config file in TypeScript, JavaScript, or JSON, and differentiates from sibling juno_config_apply by noting it's for generation before pushing.
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?
Indicates when to use (generate config) and mentions the next step (juno_config_apply). Provides context on preview vs writeFile, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.
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:

[![junobuild-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nami2111/junobuild-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nami2111/junobuild-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![junobuild-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nami2111/junobuild-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nami2111/junobuild-mcp)

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/nami2111/junobuild-mcp'

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