Skip to main content
Glama
p-pouget

mysql-materials-mcp

by p-pouget
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct resource: alloy types, list of nuances for a type, and detailed nuance by ID. No overlap in purpose.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools use consistent 'get_' prefix followed by noun phrases in snake_case, e.g., get_alloy_types, get_alloy_nuances, get_alloy_nuance_by_id.

    Tool Count4/5

    Three tools is on the low end but still acceptable for a focused read-only query server. The count is appropriate for the narrow scope.

    Completeness3/5

    The tool set covers read-only browsing of alloy types and nuances, but lacks write operations (create, update, delete) and more advanced queries. Notable gaps exist.

  • Average 3.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 1 commit 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?

    No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states it retrieves a list with id, name, description. It does not mention pagination, ordering, authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. For a read operation this is minimal.

    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?

    One sentence, no superfluous words. Clearly structured with no wasted content.

    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 low complexity (1 param, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details beyond the basics, but for a simple list retrieval it is adequate.

    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 a clear description for the single parameter. The description adds slight reinforcement by mentioning the filter condition, but does not provide meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 verb 'récupère' and resource 'liste des nuances d'alliage' with a filter condition. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_alloy_nuance_by_id and get_alloy_types by indicating it returns multiple nuances per alloy type, but no explicit differentiation is made.

    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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools are listed but no criteria for selection are provided, leaving the agent to infer based on names alone.

    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 full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves detailed info, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state behavioral traits such as safety, idempotency, or error conditions. The verb 'récupère' hints at read-only, but more explicit disclosure would improve 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?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and provides essential details about the output without redundancy. No wasted 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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return content (composition, mesures, états, usages, normes). The single parameter is documented. However, it lacks mention of error handling, authentication, or any limitations, which would make it more complete for a simple get-by-id operation.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 100% with the parameter 'id' described as 'L'id de la nuance d'alliage à récupérer'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the verb 'récupère' (retrieve), the resource 'détail complet d'une nuance d'alliage', and the key identifier 'par son id'. It lists the included aspects (composition, mesures, états, usages, normes), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_alloy_nuances (list) and get_alloy_types (types).

    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 prerequisites, conditions, or contrast with sibling tools (get_alloy_nuances, get_alloy_types).

    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 burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool retrieves all alloy types with descriptions, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. No contradictions with annotations since none exist.

    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 that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary words.

    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 parameterless retrieval tool, the description is complete. It specifies what is returned (all alloy types with descriptions) and requires no additional context from output schema or annotations.

    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 is empty (0 parameters), so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying that it retrieves all types with descriptions, which is the baseline for 0 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 the specific verb 'Récupère' (retrieves) and clearly states the object 'tous les types d'alliage avec leur description' (all alloy types with their description). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_alloy_nuance_by_id' and 'get_alloy_nuances', which likely focus on specific nuances or nuance lists.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines3/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description implies usage for retrieving all alloy types, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor does it mention when not to use it or any prerequisites.

    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

mysql-materials-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mysql-materials-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

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/p-pouget/mysql-materials-mcp'

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