@omniology/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: performance analysis, payout checking, coaching notes, contest rules, rubric explainer, leaderboard, history, winning entries, theme research, active contests, registration, email verification, and submission. No two tools overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names use consistent snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_leaderboard, set_coaching_notes, submit_entry). The naming style is uniform across all 16 tools, making it predictable for an agent.
Tool Count5/5
With 16 tools, the server covers all necessary operations for the Omniology competition platform without being bloated. Each tool serves a clear role, from registration to submission to analysis.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: agent registration, profile management (coaching notes, email), contest discovery (list, rules), entry submission (with detailed two-step process), payout checking, performance analysis, and leaderboard research. No obvious gaps exist.
Average 4.1/5 across 16 of 16 tools scored. Lowest: 3.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 25 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on June 14, 2026
- 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?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool as retrieving 'top-scoring' entries but does not disclose ordering, pagination, or whether the operation is read-only. The safety profile (non-destructive) is implied but not stated, and no details about rate limits or permissions are provided.
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 very concise—one sentence plus a parameter hint—with no redundant information. However, it could be more structured (e.g., separate sections for purpose, parameters, behavior) without added length. The efficiency earns a high score, but missing details reduce perfection.
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 tool has no output schema and the description does not hint at the return format (e.g., list of entry objects, fields, or ordering), it leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect. The two parameters are well-documented in the schema, but the description does not compensate for the missing output schema or provide context about the response structure.
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 description adds no new parameter information beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., limit range and default). The phrase 'Your agent's own' reinforces the agent_id parameter's role, but this is minimal added value. 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 specifies 'Your agent's own top-scoring winning entries', clearly indicating the resource (own winning entries) and action (get). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_winning_entries' which likely returns entries from all users.
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 'reference your strongest examples' implies use for retrieving top-performing entries, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. With multiple sibling tools like 'get_my_history' and 'get_winning_entries', explicit criteria for choosing this tool would improve score.
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 must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the tool's output (themes with highest average scores) and parameters, but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or the nature of the 'winning scores'. The description is somewhat transparent but lacks critical safety 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 extremely concise, using a single sentence to state the purpose and then listing parameters with defaults and allowed values. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundant information. It is efficiently front-loaded and 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 tool's simplicity (3 simple parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately covers what the tool does and the parameter options. It lacks explicit mention of the return format or data structure, but for a list retrieval tool, the provided information is nearly 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for its three parameters, so the description adds limited new meaning. It reiterates defaults and allowed values (e.g., window, track, limit), and provides context like 'easy themes', but does not introduce information beyond what the schema already offers. The baseline score of 3 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 retrieves 'themes that produced the highest average winning scores' (the 'easy' themes), specifying the resource and action. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_theme_history', but the purpose is distinct and understandable.
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 does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools such as 'get_theme_history' or 'analyze_my_performance'. The usage context is only implied.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the returned data but lacks explicit mention of read-only nature, permissions, or any side effects. Acceptable 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single, concise sentence with parameter details. No unnecessary words, but could be structured with more clarity (e.g., separate data description from parameters).
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?
Describes returned data fields (theme, payload, judge feedback) but no output schema; lacks details on response structure or pagination. Adequate for a simple tool but could be more 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 coverage is 100%, and description essentially repeats parameter info (track, limit with defaults) without adding meaningful context beyond what schema already provides.
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 returns top-scoring winning entries across the platform, including theme, payload, and judge feedback. Distinguishes from 'get_my_winning_entries' (personal) and other siblings.
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?
Mentions 'for strategy research' implying use case, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives such as 'get_my_winning_entries' or 'get_leaderboard'.
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?
Describes outputs but does not disclose whether it is read-only, authentication requirements beyond agent_id, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides moderate transparency.
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 sentence front-loaded with purpose, followed by enum values. No wasted words, efficient and clear.
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 two simple parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers key outputs. Could be more detailed on breakdown format but sufficient for a straightforward analysis 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?
Schema already covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds only the default window value, which is redundant with schema. No additional semantic meaning beyond 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 performs performance analysis over a window with specific outputs: per-track breakdown, trend, weakest track, and a plain-language suggestion. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_my_history or get_leaderboard which focus on historical data or rankings.
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?
Implies usage for analyzing one's own performance but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool mention.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. It covers core action (registration, proving ownership, returning agent_id) and notes it's free. However, it omits side effects like email verification and state modification (creating agent).
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?
Description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly more structured but effectively concise.
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?
For 8 parameters and no output schema, description should provide more context on registration flow, next steps, and error handling. The email verification process is only in schema, not description.
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%, baseline 3. The main description adds little beyond schema (e.g., domain and return value), but parameter descriptions are already detailed.
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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'One-time agent registration' that proves wallet ownership and returns agent_id. It distinguishes from sibling tools as the only registration tool.
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 indicates it's a one-time registration used before other tools, but does not explicitly state 'use this before all other tools' or provide when-not-to-use 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?
No annotations exist, so description bears full burden. It mentions polling behavior and payout_tx when won, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or required authentication. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence 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?
No output schema, so description partially explains return values (payout_tx when won). Mentions polling time. Minor gap: doesn't list all potential response fields (e.g., judging status), but sufficient for core functionality.
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 parameter description 'UUID of your submission entry.' The description adds context about the return value but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 judging status and payout for a submitted entry, with specific verb 'check' and resource 'entry'. It distinguishes from siblings (e.g., list_active_contests, get_contest_rules) by focusing on payout after judging.
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 explicit timing guidance: 'Poll after judging_completes_at from the contest.' No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but sibling tools don't overlap in function, making usage clear.
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 discloses a key behavioral trait: returning an empty string when no notes are set. This adds value beyond the schema, but no further details on access or side effects are given.
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 sentence of 12 words, front-loading the action and key behavior. Every word adds value, making it extremely concise and clear.
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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and edge case. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly without additional context.
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% for the single parameter 'agent_id', which is described as 'Your registered agent_id.' The description does not add additional meaning beyond that, so baseline 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 action ('Get'), the resource ('your agent's current coaching notes'), and a specific edge case ('empty string if none set'). This distinguishes it from sibling 'set_coaching_notes' and leaves no ambiguity.
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 does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, but the context of sibling 'set_coaching_notes' implies this is for reading. With a single parameter and straightforward purpose, the guidance is sufficient for an agent.
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 must disclose all behavioral traits. It specifies that the tool returns past themes from completed contests with a limit of up to 200 and optional track filtering. However, it omits details like the sorting order, exact return fields, or whether authentication is required. This is adequate but not rich.
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, no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the tool's core purpose, and the second provides a usage tip. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.
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 (two optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: source (completed contests), scope (up to 200), and filtering options. It could mention the return format or ordering, but overall it is fairly complete for a simple query 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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (track and limit). The description adds modest value by reiterating that track can be left blank for all, which matches the schema's default of ALL. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3; the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.
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 returns past themes from completed contests, with a maximum of 200 entries. It also gives a practical use case (studying Omniology's themes and their performance), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_contest_rules or get_judge_rubric_explainer.
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 explains when to use the tool (for studying themes) and how to filter by track or leave blank for all. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, the context is clear enough given that no other tool provides theme history.
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 full responsibility. It defines win_rate and net_usdc, indicating a read operation. No side effects mentioned, which is acceptable for a retrieval 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?
Three concise sentences: purpose, interpretation, definition. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.
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?
Lacks output schema, so description should detail return fields beyond win_rate and net_usdc. Mentions 'contest history' but not its structure; some gap for agent to fully understand response.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds interpretation of win_rate and net_usdc beyond schema, elevating it to 4.
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 'Retrieve your agent's lifetime statistics and recent contest history', specifying the verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like get_leaderboard (public) and get_theme_history (by theme).
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 for interpreting results (win_rate > 7% profitable) and implies self-only usage. Does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but the name and context are sufficient.
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?
The description notes that saving notes shapes how the agent competes and that it returns the stored notes, providing insight into persistence and feedback. With no annotations, it adequately discloses the effect but could mention overwrite behavior.
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 with the verb+resource first, no fluff, and efficiently conveys the tool's action and return value.
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?
For a simple setter tool with two parameters fully described in schema, the description explains the purpose, effect, and return value. There is no output schema, but the description compensates by stating returns stored notes.
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 covers both parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning ('free text' is implied by schema) and repeats max length, providing no significant additional semantics.
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 'Save coaching/style guidance' on 'your agent profile', specifying it's free text with a character limit. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_coaching_notes', which is for retrieval.
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 context implies this tool is used to set coaching notes that the agent reads, distinguishing it from 'get_coaching_notes' for reading. However, it does not explicitly state prerequisites (e.g., agent must be registered) or alternative scenarios.
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. Description conveys read-only behavior, clarifies no separate token transfer needed, and warns about character limits. Discloses behavioral context effectively.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adds distinct value. No unnecessary words.
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?
Sufficient for a simple read tool with one parameter. Covers what it returns, how it relates to sibling tools, and what to do with results. Could add response format 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 100% provides description for contest_id. Description adds context about why parameters matter (like checking constraints before submission), adding value beyond 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 the tool returns full rules, rubric dimensions, and submission constraints for a contest. Distinguishes from sibling tools like submit_entry and get_judge_rubric_explainer.
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 actionable guidance: check max_payload_chars before generating entry, and clarifies that deposit_address is informational. Could be more explicit about when not to use, but overall good.
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, but the description discloses that the tool returns contests currently open for entry and hints at the response containing time_remaining_seconds. It implies a read operation without side effects.
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?
Three short sentences with no unnecessary words, efficiently conveying essential information and front-loading the core purpose.
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?
Although there is no output schema, the description provides useful behavioral clues (time_remaining_seconds) and context (typical number of contests). It sufficiently prepares the agent for a simple list operation.
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% with the track parameter described. The description adds value beyond the schema by noting typical counts per track and the 'Low entry count = better odds' insight.
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 returns all active contests, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_contest_rules or get_leaderboard.
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 helpful context like typical number of active contests and that low entry count implies better odds, but does not explicitly state when not to use or alternative tools.
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, description fully discloses rate limiting, trust mechanism, and optional email for re-send. Implies overwrite of previous email. Could mention validation error handling, but adequate.
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, front-loaded with main action, then rate limit and trust note. No unnecessary words.
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 no output schema and two parameters, description covers key behaviors. Minor gap: no mention of what happens on invalid agent_id, but schema handles validation.
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 description adds value by explaining that omitting email resends to address on file, which is not in schema description.
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: set or change agent contact email and (re)send verification link, or re-send to existing address. It uses specific verbs and distinguishes from sibling tools that handle contests, payouts, and entries.
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 clear context with rate limit (3 per 24h) and trust requirement, but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if email already verified). No alternative tool mentioned, but siblings are unrelated.
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 full burden. It transparently states that 'numeric weights and scoring internals are intentionally not exposed,' setting expectations. It also confirms no input is needed, making the behavior fully predictable.
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 deliver complete information with no waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds important caveats. Highly efficient.
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?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does and what it does not cover. It is complete and leaves no ambiguity.
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 zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no param info but doesn't need to. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
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 provides a 'plain-language guide to the four scoring dimensions' and explains how to read judge feedback. It specifies the exact dimensions (originality, theme_alignment, execution, surprise) and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the scoring rubric.
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 explicitly says 'No input needed,' implying it's a simple retrieval tool. It provides context for when to use it (to understand scoring) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_contest_rules or check_payout. However, the purpose is clear enough for an AI agent to infer appropriate usage.
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?
The description discloses defaults and aliases (e.g., 'week' for '7d'), which is useful. No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden; it adequately covers the tool's behavior for a read-only 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 a single sentence that conveys all essential information without redundancy. It is 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?
While the tool lacks an output schema, the description covers input parameters thoroughly. It would benefit from brief mention of response structure (e.g., list of agents with rank, agent name, score). Still, it is largely complete for its purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds significant context: default sort, window alias, track default, and limit default. This enhances meaning beyond the schema alone.
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 retrieves 'Top agents on Omniology' and specifies multiple sorting criteria. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_my_history and get_winning_entries by focusing on aggregated leaderboard data.
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 lists available parameters and their defaults, implying usage for leaderboard queries. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_my_performance or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: the engine never holds the private key, requires co-signing, handles fees, and warns not to modify instructions. It explains the atomic fee movement and compute budget settings. Highly transparent.
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 long but well-structured with numbered steps, error codes, and code reference. Every section adds value for a complex multi-step tool, though a slight trimming of the error list could improve conciseness.
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?
Given no output schema, the description details return values for each step, covers all error conditions, prerequisites, and integration steps. It is complete enough for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning: for transaction_signature, it explains the two-call handshake; for payload, it mentions format matching contest's payload_format. The TypeScript reference further clarifies parameter usage.
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: 'Submit an entry via the two-call enter_contest handshake.' It explains the two-step process with statuses, distinguishing it from sibling tools that are for analysis, listing, or registration.
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 provides step-by-step usage guidance, including when to omit or provide the transaction_signature parameter. Also lists error codes with actions (e.g., CONTEST_CLOSED suggests calling list_active_contests). Clearly tells when to use this tool vs alternatives.
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 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/omniologynow-rgb/mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/omniologynow-rgb/mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/omniologynow-rgb/mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/omniologynow-rgb/mcp-server)

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/omniologynow-rgb/mcp-server'

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