claude-openmax

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.1.3
Disambiguation2/5
Tools have overlapping purposes: comm and comm_send both handle sending messages, and core's projectList duplicates tm's projectList. This creates ambiguity for an agent.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names are inconsistent: some are short abbreviations (as, tm), others are full words (comm, core), and one uses an underscore (comm_send). No clear pattern.
Tool Count4/5
7 tools is reasonable for the breadth of services, though some consolidation could reduce overlap. Still within an acceptable range.
Completeness3/5
Covers major domains (artifacts, tasks, comm, KB, identity, connections) but has noticeable gaps like missing update/delete for many entities and a separate send tool that feels incomplete.
Average 3.5/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 21 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 28, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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 are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions a 'local cache' but does not explain side effects, idempotency, error handling, or what happens with successive calls. For a multi-method tool, critical behavioral details are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is verbose and poorly structured, mixing inline method summaries with formatting notes and a long parenthetical that is hard to parse. It tries to be concise but achieves confusion, making it difficult for an agent to quickly understand the tool's interface.
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's complexity (multiple methods, nested params, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It defers essential details to a 'list' call and does not explain return values or error conditions. A new agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional information.
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 all parameters (method and params) with descriptions. The description adds value by listing method verbs and hinting that 'list' returns schemas for each method. However, it does not fully detail the parameters for each method, leaving the agent to rely on a separate 'list' call.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states that the tool handles connection credentials with multiple verbs (list, acquire, proxy, status, cached), providing some clarity on the domain. However, the purpose is muddled by overloading many operations into one tool, and the description relies on a 'list' method to fully explain each verb, making the overall purpose less immediate.
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 explains the calling convention with method and params, and gives brief inline summaries for common methods. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of its siblings (as, tm, comm, kb, core, comm_send), nor does it exclude cases where alternatives are better.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists method signatures but does not disclose important behaviors such as authentication requirements, side effects (e.g., selfRename is mutable), rate limits, or error handling. The description is primarily a parameter listing, lacking 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with a clear purpose, but the rest is dense and includes a long parenthetical with formatting characters. It could be more concise and better structured (e.g., using bullet points) to improve readability.
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's complexity (multiple methods, nested params) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It relies on a runtime 'list' method for full details, does not describe return values or error conditions, and omits some methods entirely.
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?
The description significantly enriches the input schema by explaining that 'method' is a camelCase verb, listing all valid methods with their parameter signatures (e.g., memberList(kind?, status?, ...)), and instructing how to use params. This goes far beyond the bare schema, which only has generic descriptions.
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 'Directory/identity:' and lists the main operations (me, memberList, agentProfiles, etc.), making the tool's purpose very clear and distinguishing it as the central identity/directory tool among siblings.
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 its siblings (as, tm, comm, etc.). It only details how to invoke methods within 'core', not when it is appropriate to choose this tool over alternatives.
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 carries the full burden. It explains that the tool dispatches methods and references sync, mark-read, and DM access control, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error handling. Adequate but not detailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is moderately concise, but the inline listing of methods (e.g., 'listConversations(cursor?, limit?, includeArchived?) — browse conversations') makes it a bit lengthy. The front-loading of the domain statement helps, but some sentences could be trimmed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (multiple methods) and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete regarding return values and error handling. However, the guidance to use 'list' for full method schemas partially compensates. Adequate for a meta-tool.
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% for the two top-level parameters (method and params) with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining method values ('camelCase verb or "list"') and listing common methods with their parameter fields, which enriches the schema meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Communication: conversations, messages, history, mark-read, sync, DM access control,' which broadly covers the tool's domain but lacks a specific verb+resource. It lists methods like listConversations and send, and distinguishes comm_send for replies, so purpose is moderately clear.
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 guides to 'Prefer the comm_send tool for replies,' clearly directing when to use a sibling. It also provides the invocation pattern ('Call with {"method":<verb>,"params":{...}}') and mentions using 'list' to enumerate methods, offering good usage context.
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 full burden. It reveals the internal adapter pattern that maps flat params to SDK's positional calls, which is useful. However, it lacks details on side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits, which would help an agent anticipate behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is adequately structured but slightly verbose, especially the explanation of the adapter mapping. It front-loads the purpose and usage pattern, but each sentence could be tightened. A more concise version would improve scannability.
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 complexity of a multi-method tool with no output schema, the description covers usage and internal mapping well. However, it omits return values or error handling, which would be necessary for completeness. The 'list' method partially compensates.
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 value beyond the schema by specifying method values (camelCase verbs like uploadMedia, getMediaUrl) and explaining that params is a flat arguments object. It also guides users to 'list' for per-method schemas.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function as an artifact store for upload/download media, URI resolution, and presigned URLs, using verbs like uploadMedia, getMediaUrl, etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (tm, comm, etc.) by its specific domain, though it could explicitly state 'not for communication or knowledge base operations'.
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 explicit usage instructions: call with {"method":"<verb>","params":{...}} and use {"method":"list"} for full method schemas. It clarifies the adapter's mapping to avoid positional argument construction. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states what the tool does (send/reply) but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions required, error handling, or what happens if the conversation doesn't exist. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently lists required and optional parameters. It front-loads the purpose. No wasted words, though a bit terse; could be slightly more structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic functionality and parameter hints but lacks information about return values, error conditions, or prerequisites. It 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.
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 value by clarifying the endpoint parameter ('from the wake notice or a bare conversation id'), which goes beyond the schema's description. This helps an AI agent understand how to obtain and format 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 'Reply to / send a message into a conversation', specifying a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes key parameters, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 provides guidance on what to provide (endpoint, content, optional replyTo/orgId) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling tools are listed but their purposes are not explained, missing an opportunity for differentiation.
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 provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It lists many methods with their required/optional parameters, clearly indicating write operations (e.g., issueCreate) and read operations (e.g., issueList). It does not explicitly mention side effects, authentication, or rate limits, but the method names and parameter descriptions provide reasonable transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is quite long and dense, listing many methods inline. It front-loads the main purpose but then dumps a large block of method details. While this ensures completeness, it sacrifices conciseness and readability. A more structured format (e.g., bullet points or separate lines) would improve it.
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 complexity (many methods, nested params) and no output schema, the description is very complete. It covers all primary methods and their parameters, even providing a way to get full schema via 'list'. However, it lacks explicit descriptions of return values for each method, which would be needed for full completeness.
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 covers both parameters (method and params) with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by enumerating possible method values and their specific parameter signatures, helping the agent understand what to pass in 'params'. The examples and method listing enhance parameter 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 that the tool is for task management, listing specific entities (projects, issues, tasks, etc.). It provides a detailed breakdown of methods, making the purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'as', 'comm', etc., by its domain-specific content.
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 explains how to call the tool (with method and params) and suggests using 'list' for full method details, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over sibling tools or alternatives. The context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance.
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. Description implicitly distinguishes read vs write operations (e.g., 'pageGet' vs 'pageCreate') but does not explicitly state safety, side effects, or rate limits. Adequate but could be more explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very efficient: overview sentence, then instruction to use 'list', then compact table of common methods with parameter syntax. Every sentence is informative, no redundancy.
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 no output schema and complex inner methods, description covers discovery (use 'list') and common methods. Lacks explicit return value or error descriptions, but 'list' fills gaps. Mostly complete.
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 100% on method and params. Description adds substantial meaning: explains method values (camelCase verbs, 'list'), and lists detailed parameters for each common method, far exceeding 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?
Description clearly states 'knowledge base' operations including collections, pages, search, upload. Specific verbs like 'list', 'create', 'pageCreate' define purpose exactly. Distinguishes from siblings by being a multi-method API facade.
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 detailed usage pattern: call with method and params, use 'list' to get full schemas. Lists common methods with required/optional parameters. Does not compare to sibling tools, but they are unrelated.
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:

[![claude-openmax MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/openmaxai/claude-openmax/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/openmaxai/claude-openmax)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![claude-openmax MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/openmaxai/claude-openmax/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/openmaxai/claude-openmax)

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/openmaxai/claude-openmax'

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