Skeleton MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. The five item-related tools (create_item, delete_item, get_item, list_items, update_item) form a complete CRUD set for a single resource type, while health_check serves a completely different operational purpose. The descriptions reinforce these distinct roles, making tool selection straightforward.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern with snake_case throughout. The item-related tools use standard CRUD verbs (create, delete, get, list, update) followed by the resource name 'item', while health_check maintains the same pattern. There are no deviations in style or convention across the toolset.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools is perfectly appropriate for this server's purpose. The five item management tools provide complete CRUD operations with pagination and filtering, while health_check adds necessary operational functionality. This is a well-scoped set where each tool clearly earns its place without being overwhelming or insufficient.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface provides complete coverage for the item management domain with full CRUD operations (create, read, update, delete) plus listing with filtering and pagination. The health_check tool adds operational monitoring. There are no obvious gaps - agents can perform all expected lifecycle operations on items without dead ends or workarounds.
Average 3.2/5 across 6 of 6 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states this is a creation operation (implying mutation), it doesn't mention permission requirements, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on conflicts. The return statement is helpful but minimal.
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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses minimal words to convey the essential information. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the initial 'Create a new item.' could be slightly more informative.
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 tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the description does an adequate job covering the basics but lacks depth. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it should provide more behavioral context for a mutation tool.
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?
The description explicitly lists all three parameters (name, description, metadata) with brief explanations, which adds value since schema description coverage is 0%. However, it doesn't elaborate on constraints (e.g., name length, metadata format) or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity about what constitutes valid input.
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 ('Create') and resource ('item'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'update_item' beyond the obvious creation vs. update distinction, nor does it specify what type of item is being created (e.g., file, record, object).
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 alternatives like 'update_item' or 'list_items'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or any context about when item creation is appropriate versus other operations.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes an item and raises an error if not found, which covers basic error handling. However, it lacks critical details: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, what side effects occur (e.g., cascading deletions), or the exact format of the confirmation message. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.
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 highly concise and well-structured. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by organized sections for Args, Returns, and Raises. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The formatting with bullet-like sections enhances readability and front-loads key details effectively.
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 tool's complexity (a destructive operation with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which should cover return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic operation and error case but lacks context on behavioral traits like permanence, permissions, or side effects. With no annotations and an output schema, it should do more to compensate for the destructive nature, but the structure is adequate for minimal 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?
The description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It explains that 'item_id' is 'The unique identifier of the item to delete', which clarifies the parameter's purpose. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is 4 for zero parameters, but since there is one parameter, this compensates slightly. The description doesn't provide format examples (e.g., UUID, numeric ID) or constraints beyond what the schema implies.
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 ('Delete') and resource ('an item'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_item', 'get_item', and 'update_item' by specifying deletion rather than creation, retrieval, or modification. However, it doesn't specify what type of item (e.g., file, record, object) or in what system, leaving some ambiguity.
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the item must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete system items), or comparisons with siblings like 'update_item' for modifications. The only implied usage is when deletion is needed, but no contextual boundaries are defined.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns a dictionary with server status and configuration info, which is helpful, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether it's safe for frequent use, if it requires authentication, or potential rate limits. This is inadequate 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the purpose clearly. The second sentence adds value by describing the return format. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for optimal readability.
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 tool's low complexity (0 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and hints at the return value, but lacks context on usage scenarios or behavioral details, making it incomplete for full agent guidance without additional information.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly doesn't discuss parameters, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary information while being complete for this case.
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: 'Check the health status of the MCP server.' It specifies the verb ('Check') and resource ('health status of the MCP server'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_item' or 'list_items', which prevents a perfect score.
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like server monitoring, debugging, or prerequisites, nor does it contrast with siblings like 'get_item' for data retrieval. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
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 updates an item and raises an error if not found, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., whether metadata replacement is destructive), rate limits, or response format. The mention of 'replaces existing' for metadata is a minor behavioral hint, but overall disclosure is insufficient for a mutation 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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Raises) and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, and subsequent lines explain parameters, output, and errors without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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 annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema present (so return values are covered), the description is moderately complete. It covers basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details like auth needs or mutation impacts. For a 4-param update tool, it should include more context on usage and effects to be fully 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context: 'item_id' is the unique identifier, 'name' and 'description' are optional new values, and 'metadata' optionally replaces existing metadata. This clarifies beyond the schema's types and nullability, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., string length).
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 'update' and resource 'existing item', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_item' (new item) and 'delete_item' (remove item), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_item' or 'list_items' beyond the update action.
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 alternatives like 'create_item' for new items or 'get_item' for retrieval. The description mentions a 'ValueError' for missing items, but this is an error case rather than usage advice. It lacks context about prerequisites or typical scenarios.
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. It discloses pagination behavior and optional filtering, which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions.
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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It's appropriately sized with no wasted words, though the formatting with separate sections could be slightly more concise if integrated into flowing text.
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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, pagination, filtering), the description is reasonably complete. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail, and it provides good parameter semantics. However, it lacks context about when to use this versus sibling tools.
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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all three parameters: page (1-indexed), page_size (items per page), and filter_name (case-insensitive contains). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain default values or constraints like minimum/maximum values.
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 as 'List all items with optional filtering and pagination', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_item' which might retrieve a single item, though the 'list all items' phrasing implies a collection operation.
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 alternatives like 'get_item' for single items or how it relates to other siblings like 'create_item', 'update_item', and 'delete_item'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria.
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. It discloses that the tool returns item data if found and raises a ValueError if not, adding useful context beyond basic functionality. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling beyond the ValueError, which is a gap for a read operation.
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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses sections (Args, Returns, Raises) efficiently, with each sentence adding value. There's no wasted text, making it easy for an AI 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 low complexity (single parameter, read-only operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and error behavior. However, it could improve by addressing usage relative to siblings or adding more behavioral context, which holds it back from a perfect score.
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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'item_id' is 'The unique identifier of the item,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's type definition. Since there's only one parameter, this is sufficient for high utility, though not exhaustive.
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: 'Get a specific item by ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('item'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_items' or 'health_check,' which prevents a perfect score.
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_items' for multiple items or 'create_item'/'update_item' for modifications. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
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:

[![mcp_server_template MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nickweedon/mcp_server_template/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nickweedon/mcp_server_template)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp_server_template MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nickweedon/mcp_server_template/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nickweedon/mcp_server_template)

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/nickweedon/mcp_server_template'

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