MCP Server App

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct purpose: web search, dice rolling, social post creation, slide image generation, quote card creation, and five distinct GitHub operations (search, repo info, file content, file listing, auth status). No two tools have overlapping functionality, and the GitHub prefix clearly separates those tools from the general utilities.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools use lowercase snake_case with a clear verb_noun pattern (e.g., web_search, roll_dice, create_social_post) and GitHub tools consistently use a github_ prefix followed by a verb_noun structure (e.g., github_search_repositories, github_get_file_content). The naming is highly predictable and conventional.
Tool Count5/5
With 10 tools, the server sits comfortably in the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool contributes a unique capability, and the mix of 5 general content/search utilities and 5 GitHub utilities feels reasonably scoped for a multi-purpose server.
Completeness3/5
The GitHub toolset covers read-only operations and search, but lacks common write operations such as creating issues or pull requests, making it incomplete for full repository management. The general tools are a mixed bag without a coherent domain, leaving obvious gaps (e.g., no generic image generation beyond slides/quote cards). However, the existing tools do cover their immediate stated purposes.
Average 3/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
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

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention the format of accepted notation, whether the roll is random, any constraints, error behavior, or the return value. This is a significant transparency gap.
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 very short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. Every sentence is technically earned but the content is insufficient. It is concise at the expense of usefulness.
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?
Despite being a simple tool, the description is incomplete for an agent to use it correctly. It does not explain the expected notation syntax or the number of rolls, and while an output schema exists, the description does not help connect inputs to outputs. The description needs more detail to be functionally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 for parameter meaning. It only vaguely references 'notation' and completely ignores the 'num_rolls' parameter. The description provides essentially no semantic information beyond the parameter names.
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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name ('roll dice') with a vague reference to 'given notation'. It communicates the basic action but adds no detail about what notation is or how it differs from other tools. It's minimally clear but not strongly differentiated.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about suitable scenarios. The description simply states the action without implying any usage conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not reveal whether the tool searches existing images, generates AI images, what image sources/licenses apply, or whether output is a URL or binary. The vague phrase 'presentation-ready' adds little concrete behavioral detail.
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, concise sentence that is easy to scan and front-loaded with the action. It wastes no words, though it sacrifices substance for brevity.
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?
Although the tool is simple with only two parameters and an output schema exists, the description omits essential context such as image sourcing, licensing, acceptable file formats, and any constraints on topic or size. For a tool that retrieves images, the lack of behavioral or usage detail makes it underdeveloped.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should clarify the parameters. It only mentions 'presentation-ready' but does not explain that 'topic' is the subject of the image or that 'size' controls dimensions (despite the default of 1920x1080). The meaning of 'topic' and 'size' remains implicit and under-specified.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('presentation-ready images for slides and presentations'), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like create_quote_card or create_social_post, which could also produce presentation-related visuals.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, such as web_search for finding images or create_quote_card for generating quote graphics. The description implies it is for slide-ready images but never states the intended use case or any exclusions.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or the return format. 'Generate' suggests a creative operation but fails to clarify whether the tool is read-only, mutates state, or has any other behavioral implications.
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, clean sentence with no wasted words, and it front-loads the core action. However, it is under-specified for the parameter, making it not fully 'appropriately sized' given the need for more 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?
The tool is simple, but the description still lacks completeness by not explaining the 'theme' parameter or distinguishing from the similar sibling create_social_post. The output schema exists, but the description fails to provide critical usage context that the schema does not cover.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema defines only one parameter ('theme') with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what 'theme' means, how it affects the output, or what values are acceptable, leaving the agent without the necessary information to correctly set this parameter beyond using the default.
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 generates a quote card with inspirational text and a background image, which is a specific and distinct resource from siblings like create_social_post. The verb 'generate' and the noun 'quote card' make the action and object unambiguous.
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 such as create_social_post or get_slide_image. There are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or context indicating when this tool is appropriate over others.
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 merely states 'Get detailed information' without disclosing whether authentication is required, what kind of information is returned, or any rate limits or potential side effects. The behavior is opaque beyond the high-level purpose.
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 and is concise. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could benefit from a bit more structure (e.g., listing key details) without becoming verbose.
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?
Although an output schema exists (so return values are self-documenting), the description lacks contextual information such as authentication requirements or how this tool compares to similar repository-related tools. Given the minimal description and no annotations, it is incomplete for an agent to safely and correctly invoke the tool in all situations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention the parameters 'owner' and 'repo' or explain their roles. The agent is left to infer that 'owner' is the repository owner and 'repo' is the repository name from the parameter names alone, which is a significant gap.
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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific GitHub repository'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like github_search_repositories or github_get_file_content. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does.
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 any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools such as github_search_repositories or github_get_file_content.
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 of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what kind of results it returns, any potential side effects, or limitations. The description simply restates the action without adding safety or behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that is appropriately sized and front-loaded. It contains no fluff or redundant words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Although the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description lacks essential contextual information such as when to use it, what the query parameter entails, and any behavioral details. Given the absence of annotations and minimal parameter guidance, the description is insufficient for fully correct tool invocation in ambiguous situations.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description should explain what constitutes a valid query, any formatting requirements, or how the query is used. It only says 'about the given query,' which adds no meaningful detail beyond the parameter name and type.
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 performs a web search for the given query, using the specific verb 'search' and resource 'the web'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like github_search_repositories by specifying the web as the scope, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with alternatives.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus other sibling tools. It does not mention any preconditions, alternatives, or specific contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage only from the tool's name and generic purpose.
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 present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'generate[s]' a post but does not reveal side effects, persistence, whether it actually publishes to a platform, or any prerequisites. This is a basic action statement without deeper behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the action and subject, making it immediately understandable and appropriately concise.
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?
Although the tool is simple with two parameters and an output schema, the description lacks critical context about the tool's behavior, such as whether it posts to a social network or just returns generated content. It does not clarify the relationship between image and text or any side effects. A bit more detail would make it complete.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for explaining parameters. It implicitly addresses 'topic' via 'any topic', but the 'style' parameter is completely ignored, and no additional meaning is added beyond the schema's field names. The description only partially compensates for the lack of parameter documentation.
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 the specific verb 'Generate' and identifies the resource as a 'social media post with image and text', which clearly states what the tool does. It is distinguishable from siblings like web_search and create_quote_card by focusing on social posts with both image and text, though not explicitly differentiating them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_quote_card or get_slide_image. The phrase 'for any topic' implies broad usage but does not clarify exclusions or when a different sibling might be more appropriate. This is minimal guidance at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool fetches file content but does not mention how the content is returned (e.g., raw text, base64, metadata), what the default branch behavior is (though the schema has a default), or any error/authentication concerns. This is a thin description for a tool interacting with an external system.
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, focused sentence that uses exactly the words needed to convey the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no fluff, and is appropriately sized for a simple read operation.
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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, external API), the description covers only the basic purpose. The presence of an output schema mitigates the lack of return-value documentation, and the operation is a read, not a mutation. However, it lacks usage guidance and parameter semantics, making it only marginally complete.
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 schema has a description coverage of 0%, meaning no parameter is documented in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining any parameters (owner, repo, file_path, branch). The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds nothing about the required format or the role of the optional branch, which is a significant gap.
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 action ('Get'), the resource ('content of a specific file'), and the context ('from a GitHub repository'). While it is specific and easy to understand, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like github_list_files or github_get_repository_info, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 when to use the tool (when you need file content) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives to prefer (e.g., github_list_files for just filenames). There are no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned, so it relies on inference rather than clear direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately states the read-only action of listing, but it does not disclose behavioral details such as recursion behavior, pagination, or authentication needs. It is minimally transparent but lacks richness beyond the basic verb.
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 zero redundancy. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it appropriately concise and efficient.
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 is relatively simple: it lists files/directories with four parameters and has an output schema. The description covers the core action but does not address edge cases (e.g., empty path, default branch) or provide examples. It is adequate but leaves some contextual gaps, such as the behavior when 'path' is omitted.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description only references 'path' indirectly, and it does not clarify the meaning of 'owner', 'repo', or 'branch'. Parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds little value beyond what the schema already shows.
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 the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'files and directories in a GitHub repository path'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like github_get_file_content (which retrieves file content) and github_repository_info, making 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of when not to use it. For example, it does not explain whether this tool should be preferred over github_get_file_content for exploring a repository tree. The usage context is entirely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits such as whether authentication is required, whether the operation is read-only, or any rate limits or pagination behavior. The description only states the search action and gives examples, adding no context about side effects, safety, or constraints. This is a notable gap given the presence of a github_auth_status sibling tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately focuses on the primary action and includes helpful query examples. There is no filler or redundant information; every word adds value.
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 description provides enough to understand the tool's core purpose, and the existence of an output schema covers return value specifics. However, the lack of usage guidance, parameter clarification for 'limit', and behavioral context (e.g., auth) makes it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without additional assumptions. For a simple search tool, it is minimally adequate 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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It effectively explains the 'query' parameter with examples, but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter at all. The schema defines limit as an integer with default 5, but without a description, the agent cannot know that limit likely controls the maximum number of results returned.
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 states a specific action ('Search for GitHub repositories') with clear resource (GitHub repositories) and method (by query). Examples of query formats help differentiate it from sibling tools like github_get_repository_info or github_list_files, since this is the only search tool among them.
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 searching repositories and provides query examples, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like github_get_repository_info or github_list_files. There is no mention of when not to use it or any prerequisites (e.g., authentication), though the examples offer some contextual hints.
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 must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read-only status operation, but doesn't disclose details like error handling, whether authentication is required, or what happens if not authenticated. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is acceptable 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?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero params, output schema present), the description sufficiently covers the functionality. However, it could benefit from noting that it provides rate limit information, which is already named. There is no missing critical information for basic usage. A slight gap is lack of mention that it returns structured auth information, but that's covered by output schema.
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 the description correctly doesn't need to explain parameter meanings. The baseline score of 4 applies due to no parameters.
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 'Check' and names the resource 'GitHub authentication status and rate limits'. This is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on search, repository info, file content, etc. 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 provides clear context: the tool is for checking GitHub auth status and rate limits. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives, though no sibling directly overlaps. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references.
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-App MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ovokpus/MCP-Server-App/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ovokpus/MCP-Server-App)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![MCP-Server-App MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ovokpus/MCP-Server-App/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ovokpus/MCP-Server-App)

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/ovokpus/MCP-Server-App'

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