nimbus

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v2.7.1
Disambiguation4/5
Each tool has a distinct primary purpose: general search, connector status, recent PRs, deployments, DORA metrics, and incidents. There is some conceptual overlap between searchIndex and the getRecent* helpers, but the descriptions clarify ranked search vs. time-ordered lists.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tools consistently use camelCase with a 'get' prefix for most queries, and the getRecent* grouping is a strong pattern. The one deviation is searchIndex, which lacks a 'get' prefix but still follows a readable verb_noun structure.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range for a focused read-only data access server. Each tool covers a distinct, useful capability without bloat.
Completeness4/5
The surface covers the core read operations for the index: search, connector health, recent item lists, and DORA metrics. Minor gaps like item detail retrieval or additional item types are mitigated by the generic searchIndex tool, which can access any indexed entity.
Average 3.8/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 6 of 8 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 582 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 19, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under AGPL 3.0.
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.
This server has been verified by its author.
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 must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only mentions 'configured service,' implying a prerequisite, but doesn't explain what configuration entails, auth requirements, rate limits, output format, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.
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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core purpose and a parameter detail.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and only two parameters, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain how metrics are calculated, what 'configured' means, the default 'since' if omitted, or what the response looks like. The tool is moderately complex, and this description leaves major gaps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by explaining the 'since' parameter format ('values like '30d'') and hinting that 'service' refers to a configured service. However, it doesn't document any default behavior, acceptable formats for 'service', or further parameter details.
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 function: getting DORA metrics with specific metric names. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('DORA metrics'), and the metrics list (deployment frequency, lead time, etc.) distinguishes it from sibling tools like getRecentDeployments or getRecentIncidents.
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 usage context is implied: you use this when you need DORA metrics for a service. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it, nor any mention of 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?
With no annotations, the description takes on the burden. It discloses sort order ('most recent first'), the presence of state under meta.state as conditional ('when the connector recorded it'), and the inability to pre-filter by state. This gives useful behavioral context beyond a simple 'list' statement.
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, 39 words, with the main action front-loaded. Every sentence contributes either the core functionality or a key filtering caveat. No fluff.
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 tool has only 2 optional params, no annotations, and no output schema. The description explains ordering and the state field, but leaves the 'service' parameter and the term 'connector' undefined. It's adequate for a simple list tool but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention 'limit' or 'service'. While 'limit' is self-explanatory, 'service' is ambiguous (which service? what values?). The description adds no meaning to the parameter names, leaving the agent to guess.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List recent pull requests from the local index'. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like getRecentDeployments or getDoraMetrics by naming a unique resource (pull requests).
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 a limitation ('the index cannot pre-filter by PR state') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings. It does not say, for example, 'use searchIndex for broader searches' or any alternative scenario.
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, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context about the data source (local index), ordering (most recent first), and filtering (by service). However, it does not disclose read-only status, rate limits, or return format details.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers essential behavior: what it lists, the data source, ordering, and optional filter. It does not explain return structure, but that is not critical for a simple list operation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'service' parameter's purpose (filtering) but does not elaborate on 'limit' beyond what the schema type implies. Some meaning is added, but not complete 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 lists recent deployments from the local index, with most recent first and optional service filtering. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like getRecentPullRequests and getDoraMetrics.
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 retrieving recent deployments with optional service filtering, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of others like searchIndex. There are no exclusions or alternatives 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the local index source and sorting order, but does not mention read-only nature, potential rate limits, or return format. This is acceptable for a simple list tool but not comprehensive.
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 front-loaded sentence that communicates the core action, resource, ordering, and optional filter without any wasted words. It is highly concise and direct.
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 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is listed, from where, in what order, and the optional filter. Some missing details like limit semantics and return format are minor for this scope.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'service' is an optional filter, but does not explain 'limit' at all. The limit parameter is self-explanatory by name, but the description adds value only for service.
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', the resource 'recent incidents', and the scope 'from the local index' with ordering 'most recent first'. It inherently distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on pull requests, deployments, or Dora metrics.
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 phrase 'Optionally filter by service' gives some context for use, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives like searchIndex or other getRecent tools. The usage is implied rather than clearly delineated.
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, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are ranked and that it searches across services, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not specify whether results are real-time, any authentication requirements, or potential side effects. The description is accurate but lacks depth on behavior such as caching or data freshness.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and scope. It includes examples and filters without redundant words. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to scan.
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 tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, yet the description only vaguely mentions 'ranked items' without specifying return structure. It covers core functionality and service scope but omits details on limit and semantic behavior. Given missing annotations and output schema, this is adequate but not fully 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'service' and 'itemType' as optional filters, and 'query' is implicitly the search term. However, 'limit' and 'semantic' are not described. 'semantic' is especially unclear without explanation, leaving a significant gap for a boolean 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 tool performs a search over the Nimbus local index across connected services, listing examples. It distinctly separates from sibling tools that focus on specific retrievals (status, recent PRs, deployments, etc.). The verb 'Search' plus resource 'local index' makes the purpose unmistakable.
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 this is the general search tool for finding items across services, while siblings are specific getters. It mentions optional filters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. Context is clear enough for an agent to decide, though no direct exclusions or alternative tool references are given.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and 'for every configured connector' discloses the scope (all connectors, not filtered). It does not mention return format or potential errors, but for a simple list operation, the behavior is adequately transparent.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and the target resource, achieving high clarity in minimal space.
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 simplicity of the tool (no params, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior well. It names the output content ('health and sync state') and the scope ('every connector'). It could mention response format or that it returns a list, but that is implied by 'List.' Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use it correctly.
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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per calibration, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when description need not add parameter details. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is fine here.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('Nimbus connector health and sync state') and scope ('every configured connector'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on indexes, PRs, deployments, DORA metrics, and incidents.
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 a clear use case: checking connector health and sync status across all connectors. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context is unambiguous and the sibling tools are sufficiently different that no confusion arises.
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:

[![Nimbus MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nimbus-agent/Nimbus/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nimbus-agent/Nimbus)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Nimbus MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nimbus-agent/Nimbus/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nimbus-agent/Nimbus)

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/nimbus-agent/Nimbus'

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