mcp-intermarche-drive

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose: browser_status checks connection, search_product looks up products, get_cart reads the cart, add_to_cart/remove_from_cart/update_quantity manage items, and set_substitution handles substitution settings. No overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, such as search_product, add_to_cart, get_cart. The naming is predictable and uniform.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for a drive service. It covers all essential cart operations without being excessive or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The tools cover connection check, product search, and full CRUD for cart items. Minor gaps like clearing the entire cart or switching stores are missing, but the core workflows are complete.
Average 4.1/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 3.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 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?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which the description confirms with 'completely remove'. However, the description does not add new behavioral details beyond what annotations already provide, such as behavior when product is not in the cart.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for this simple tool.
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 of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, clear annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks information about error states or prerequisites. It could benefit from mentioning that the product must currently be in the cart.
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 schema already covers the single parameter 'product_id' with a description ('Identifiant produit'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning or usage context for the parameter.
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 'Retire complètement' (completely remove) and the resource 'un produit du panier' (a product from the cart). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like add_to_cart and update_quantity by indicating complete removal rather than adding or modifying quantity.
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, nor does it specify prerequisites or conditions. It simply states the action without context for decision-making.
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 this tool is a mutation (readOnlyHint: false), potentially destructive (destructiveHint: true), and idempotent (idempotentHint: true). The description adds that it 'explicitly' enables/disables, but does not elaborate on side effects, error conditions, or permission requirements. With annotations present, the description provides minimal extra behavioral context.
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, clear sentence that wastes no words. It is front-loaded with the action and object, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's function.
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 (2 parameters, no output schema) and the presence of informative annotations, the description adequately covers the core functionality. However, it could be more complete by mentioning what happens if the product is not in the cart or if the substitution state change fails. Minor gap but not critical for basic 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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (product_id and accept) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema states. Baseline score 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 tool's purpose: explicitly enable or disable substitutions for a cart line. It uses a specific verb (active/désactive) and resource (substitutions for a line in cart). Among sibling tools, none handle substitutions, so it is uniquely identified.
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 context by specifying 'pour une ligne déjà présente dans le panier' (for a line already in the cart), but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. The context is implied but not directive.
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 readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds that it returns stable identifiers for cart tools, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction.
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 in French, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Every word earns its 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?
Given the presence of annotations covering safety/idempotency and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and return value. Could mention pagination behavior or store context more explicitly, but still complete enough.
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 (query, page, page_size). The description does not add new parameter info but explains the purpose of the output (stable identifiers). Baseline 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 tool searches the catalog of the currently selected Intermarché store and returns stable identifiers for cart tools. It distinguishes from sibling tools (cart manipulation) by specifying it's a search/read operation.
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?
Usage is implied (search before cart operations), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Siblings are all cart tools, so the distinction is clear, but alternatives or exclusions are not 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 destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds that quantity 0 removes the product, which is important. However, it does not detail other behavioral aspects such as whether it overwrites existing quantity or any prerequisites, leaving some gaps.
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, efficient sentences front-load the verb and core behavior. No waste; every word adds value.
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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary behavior (absolute set and removal) and is consistent with annotations. It does not address edge cases like invalid product ID, but that is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the annotations.
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%, so the description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that setting quantity to 0 removes the product. This supplements the property description of 'Nouvelle quantité absolue'.
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 sets the absolute quantity of a cart product and specifies that a quantity of 0 removes it. This distinguishes it from siblings like add_to_cart (incremental) and remove_from_cart (unconditional removal).
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 use cases (set exact quantity or remove by setting 0) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like add_to_cart for incremental changes. Sibling tools provide context, but the description itself lacks direct guidance.
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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds value by specifying it reads the 'complete' cart for active store and pickup mode, providing 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?
Single concise sentence in French that is front-loaded with the action. No wasted words; every part is informative.
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 simple read operation with no parameters and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete enough. It specifies what is read and the active scope. Lacks details on return format, but no output schema exists.
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?
Input schema has zero parameters, so description need not add parameter info. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and description does not need to compensate.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'Lit' (reads) and resource 'panier complet' (complete cart) with scope 'magasin et mode de retrait actifs' (active store and pickup mode). Distinguishes from sibling tools like add_to_cart, remove_from_cart which modify the cart.
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?
Description implies usage for viewing the cart before modifications, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_product or browser_status. No exclusions or conditions mentioned.
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?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), the description reveals that substitutions are refused by default, which is a key behavioral trait. It does not contradict 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 concise sentences with no extraneous information. The key action and default behavior are 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?
Given the simple tool (3 params, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the main behavior and distinguishes from siblings. Minor omission of error handling, but not critical.
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%, but the description adds semantic value by clarifying the default behavior for accept_substitution and emphasizing that substitutions require explicit user request.
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 'adds a quantity to the product' with the specific verb 'add' and resource 'product/cart'. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting that substitutions are refused by default, contrasting with set_substitution.
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 guidance on when to accept substitutions (only on explicit user request). While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use the tool, the sibling tools (update_quantity, set_substitution) imply alternatives.
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, etc. Description adds specifics about what is checked, enhancing transparency without contradiction.
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: one for purpose, one for usage. No unnecessary words, front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple tool with no parameters and no output schema; description covers what it does and when to use it. 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?
No parameters, so description need not explain. Baseline 4 for zero params with full schema coverage.
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 checks connection, active store, and DataDome challenge, distinguishing it from product/cart siblings.
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 'À appeler avant les courses' (call before shopping), providing clear usage context. No direct alternatives, but implied by sibling tools.
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-intermarche-drive MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nicolasestrem/mcp-intermarche-drive/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nicolasestrem/mcp-intermarche-drive)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-intermarche-drive MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nicolasestrem/mcp-intermarche-drive/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nicolasestrem/mcp-intermarche-drive)

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/nicolasestrem/mcp-intermarche-drive'

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