Skip to main content
Glama
nayagamez

claude-cli-mcp

by nayagamez
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.7

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: 'claude' starts a new Claude Code CLI session, while 'claude-reply' continues an existing session using a session ID. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names use a consistent lowercase-with-hyphen pattern ('claude' and 'claude-reply'), where the first is a base command and the second adds a modifier. The naming is predictable and clear.

    Tool Count4/5

    With only two tools, the set is minimal but sufficient for starting and continuing Claude Code sessions. The count is slightly low but reasonable given the focused scope of the server.

    Completeness3/5

    The server covers the essential actions (starting and continuing sessions) but lacks tools for explicitly ending sessions, listing active sessions, or changing session parameters. The absence of session management creates a notable gap.

  • Average 4.2/5 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

  • 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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    Discloses the underlying mechanism (claude --resume) and a known issue (directory dependency). However, lacks details on error handling, return behavior, or consequences of invalid session IDs. Relies on schema for parameter descriptions.

    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 short paragraphs with no redundant information. First sentence clearly states the tool's purpose, followed by mechanism and a necessary caveat. Efficient and front-loaded.

    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 13 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context on usage and a critical limitation. Could include more on return values or error states, but the caveat about directory binding is valuable 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 describes all 13 parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about session ID directory binding but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding 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?

    Clearly states it continues a Claude Code CLI conversation using a session ID and follow-up prompt. Distinguishes itself from the sibling 'claude' tool by specifying resumption rather than initiation.

    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?

    Provides context on when to use (follow-up conversations) and includes a critical caveat about directory binding. Could explicitly exclude use for new conversations, but the distinction from 'claude' is implied.

    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?

    No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses execution as subprocess, output format, session ID generation, and default permission mode with safety warning. However, lacks details on idempotency, error handling, or side effects beyond the permission mode note.

    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?

    Very concise: three short paragraphs front-loading the main purpose, continuation usage, and a critical warning. No unnecessary content.

    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?

    Tool has 13 parameters and no output schema, but description only covers high-level behavior and permission mode. Missing details on return value structure, error behavior, and parameter interactions. Could be more complete given 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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what schema already provides, so 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 it runs a Claude Code CLI session and starts a new coding task. It distinguishes from the sibling tool claude-reply by noting that session ID can be used to continue the conversation.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines5/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    Explicitly says to use this tool to start a new coding task and points to claude-reply for continuation. Also includes a warning about permission mode defaults, guiding safer usage.

    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

claude-cli-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

claude-cli-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/nayagamez/claude-cli-mcp'

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