Skip to main content
Glama
naveenayalla1-CS50

Naveen Ayalla

by naveenayalla1-CS50
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

75%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a distinct purpose: listing files, reading contents, and searching code. No overlap or confusion possible.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools use consistent verb_noun naming: list_files, read_file, search_code. The pattern is uniform and predictable.

    Tool Count4/5

    Three tools is minimal but well-scoped for a basic codebase exploration server. It covers the essential operations without being overly sparse.

    Completeness3/5

    The set covers listing, reading, and searching files, but lacks directory listing or file metadata tools, which would be expected for full codebase navigation.

  • Average 3.3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 20 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • 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.

  • This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.

  • 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 should disclose behavioral traits like file size limits, encoding, or side effects, but it only states the basic action. However, it is a read operation, so risk is low.

    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 with no unnecessary words. It communicates the core functionality efficiently.

    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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description minimally covers the purpose but omits details like return format, encoding, or limitations that would help an agent use it correctly.

    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% and the parameter description 'File path relative to repo root' is adequate. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 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 tool reads the full contents of a file, using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like list_files (listing) and search_code (searching), though not explicitly.

    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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_files or search_code. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

    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?

    Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the basic behavior (listing files matching a glob), but does not mention details like recursion, return format, or limits. Adequate but not thorough.

    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?

    Extremely concise single sentence with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded and to the point.

    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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally complete but lacks details about return values or behavior. It does not fully equip the agent for correct invocation.

    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 description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description offers no additional parameter context.

    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?

    Description clearly states the tool lists files matching a glob pattern. It is specific about the action and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_code or read_file.

    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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about appropriate use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

    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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the basic behavior (search, return results), but lacks details such as case sensitivity, regex support, or permission requirements. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

    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 concise, consisting of two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and immediately states the return format. Slight improvement could be made by integrating usage guidance.

    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 lack of output schema, the description appropriately states what is returned. The parameters are fully described in the schema. The sibling tools provide context. Completeness is high for a search tool with moderate complexity.

    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 each parameter is already described. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'keyword or pattern'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as no additional context is provided.

    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 ('Search for a keyword or pattern'), the resource ('codebase'), and what is returned ('file path, line number, and surrounding context'). It is distinct from sibling tools list_files and read_file, which focus on listing and reading files, not searching content.

    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?

    No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context implies it is for finding code occurrences, but there is no mention of when not to use it or alternative strategies.

    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

mcp-server-toolkit MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-server-toolkit 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/naveenayalla1-CS50/mcp-server-toolkit'

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