VPS Initialize

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: execute_command runs commands, github_cicd_setup configures CI/CD, nginx_setup handles web server setup, ssh_connect establishes SSH connections, and vps_initialize performs initial VPS setup. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., execute_command, nginx_setup, ssh_connect), but github_cicd_setup uses an acronym and vps_initialize includes 'vps' as a prefix, which slightly deviates from the pattern. Overall, the naming is readable and mostly predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for VPS initialization tasks. Each tool serves a specific, necessary function in the setup process, from connecting to the VPS to configuring services, making the count appropriate and efficient.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers core VPS initialization workflows, including connection, basic setup, command execution, web server configuration, and CI/CD integration. A minor gap might be the lack of tools for monitoring or backup setup, but agents can work around this with existing tools.
Average 2.9/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
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

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 the action is to 'Execute a command' but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify permissions required, whether commands run with elevated privileges, potential side effects (e.g., data modification or system changes), error handling, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool that likely performs mutations on a VPS.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.
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 (executing commands on a VPS implies potential mutations and security risks), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or result handling, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'command' documented in the schema as 'Command to execute'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples of valid commands, syntax constraints, or security considerations. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
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 ('Execute a command') and target resource ('on the connected VPS'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'ssh_connect' or 'vps_initialize', which might also involve VPS operations, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the VPS must be initialized or connected first), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'ssh_connect' for remote access, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
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 mentions 'deploy keys and workflow', hinting at configuration and automation, but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only or mutative operation (likely mutative given 'Setup'), what permissions are required, if it modifies existing setups, or potential side effects like overwriting files. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves significant system changes.
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, efficient sentence: 'Setup GitHub CI/CD with deploy keys and workflow'. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes key components. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from context, but it avoids redundancy and wastes no words.
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 complexity of CI/CD setup (likely involving mutations, authentication, and system changes), the description is incomplete. No annotations exist to cover behavioral traits, and there's no output schema to explain return values. The description lacks details on what 'Setup' entails (e.g., creates files, configures secrets), success/failure conditions, or dependencies. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.
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, with clear parameter definitions ('repoUrl' as GitHub repository URL, 'deployPath' as deployment path on server). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples (e.g., URL structure) or constraints (e.g., path must exist). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.
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 purpose: 'Setup GitHub CI/CD with deploy keys and workflow'. It specifies the verb ('Setup') and resource ('GitHub CI/CD'), and mentions key components (deploy keys and workflow). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'execute_command' or 'vps_initialize', which might also involve setup operations.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a GitHub repository or server access), exclusions (e.g., not for other CI/CD platforms), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'nginx_setup' or 'ssh_connect'. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
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 states 'Configure Nginx,' implying a mutation that likely changes system files and requires permissions, but doesn't specify if it's idempotent, destructive, or requires sudo/root access. It mentions SSL with Certbot, hinting at external dependencies, but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or output format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Configure Nginx with domain, reverse proxy, and SSL.' It's front-loaded with the core action and lists key features without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
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 complexity of configuring Nginx (a mutation tool with system impact), no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, side effects), usage context, and what to expect upon completion (e.g., success message, file changes). The agent is left with significant gaps in understanding how to invoke and interpret results from this 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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for 'domain,' 'port,' and 'ssl.' It implies that 'domain' and 'port' are used for reverse proxy setup and 'ssl' enables Certbot, but doesn't elaborate on syntax (e.g., domain format), defaults, or interactions between parameters. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.
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 purpose: 'Configure Nginx with domain, reverse proxy, and SSL.' It specifies the verb ('configure') and resources/features (Nginx, domain, reverse proxy, SSL), making the action concrete. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'vps_initialize' or 'github_cicd_setup', which might also involve configuration tasks, so it misses full sibling distinction.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing Nginx installed), exclusions (e.g., not for Apache setups), or comparisons to siblings like 'execute_command' for general commands or 'vps_initialize' for initial server setup. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
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 the tool establishes an SSH connection but lacks details on what happens after connection (e.g., does it open a session, return a handle, or just verify connectivity?), error handling, timeout behavior, or security implications. This is inadequate for a tool that involves network operations and authentication.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and authentication options without any fluff. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its function, with every word earning its place.
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 complexity of SSH connections (involving network, authentication, and potential session management), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., connection status, session ID), error cases, or behavioral traits like timeouts, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for all 6 parameters (e.g., host as 'VPS IP address or hostname', port with default 22). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between password and privateKeyPath. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Connect to a VPS via SSH') and the authentication methods ('using password or private key'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'execute_command' (which might be for commands after connection) or 'vps_initialize' (which might be for initial setup).
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 like 'execute_command' (for running commands on an SSH connection) or 'vps_initialize' (for initial VPS setup). It mentions authentication methods but doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context implied 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 full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a creation/write operation ('initialize') but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is destructive to existing VPS configurations, authentication requirements, execution time, error handling, or rate limits. The phrase 'basic setup' is vague without elaboration.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'initialize' (action), 'fresh VPS' (resource), 'basic setup' (scope), and 'optional services' (parameter hint). There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
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 complexity of initializing a VPS with multiple service options, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on what 'basic setup' entails, expected outcomes, error conditions, or how the tool interacts with siblings, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds some context by mentioning 'optional services', which aligns with the 'services' parameter in the schema. However, it doesn't explain the structure of the services object or provide examples, leaving significant gaps in understanding how to use the parameters effectively.
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 ('initialize') and resource ('fresh VPS'), specifying 'with basic setup and optional services'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'execute_command' or 'nginx_setup' by focusing on comprehensive VPS initialization rather than specific tasks. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'github_cicd_setup' which might also involve setup activities.
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 like 'nginx_setup' for just Nginx installation or 'github_cicd_setup' for CI/CD setup. It mentions 'optional services' but doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
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:

[![DevPilot MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/oxy-Op/DevPilot/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/oxy-Op/DevPilot)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![DevPilot MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/oxy-Op/DevPilot/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/oxy-Op/DevPilot)

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/oxy-Op/DevPilot'

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