Simple MCP Server

by p-united

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Local

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: create_sample_file is for generating test files, get_allowed_paths lists accessible directories, get_system_info retrieves system metadata, list_directory shows directory contents, read_file reads file content, and write_file writes to files. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection straightforward.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: create_sample_file, get_allowed_paths, get_system_info, list_directory, read_file, and write_file. This uniformity enhances readability and predictability across the tool set.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for file and system operations, covering creation, reading, writing, listing, and information retrieval. Each tool serves a distinct role without redundancy, making the count appropriate for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides strong coverage for basic file operations and system queries, including create, read, write, list, and info retrieval. A minor gap exists in update or delete operations for files, but agents can work around this using write_file for updates, and the domain is reasonably complete for a simple server.
Average 3.2/5 across 6 of 6 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
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions the 'only permitted directories' restriction, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose whether this overwrites existing files, appends, requires specific permissions, handles encoding, or what happens on success/failure. For a file write operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 in Japanese that communicates the core functionality. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main action. No wasted words, though it could potentially benefit from slightly more detail given the lack of annotations.
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?
For a file write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions directory restrictions but doesn't cover overwrite behavior, error handling, permissions, or return values. Given the complexity of file operations and the lack of structured metadata, more comprehensive guidance would be helpful.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (filepath and content) adequately. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when 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 ('書き込みます' - writes) and resource ('ファイル' - file) with specific scope ('テキスト' - text, '許可されたディレクトリのみ' - only permitted directories). It distinguishes from sibling read_file (read vs write) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from create_sample_file which might also create/write files.
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 mentions '許可されたディレクトリのみ' (only permitted directories), which provides some context about restrictions, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_sample_file. No guidance on prerequisites, error conditions, or comparison with sibling tools.
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 the tool displays accessible paths, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence in Japanese: 'アクセス可能なパスの一覧を表示します'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It states what the tool does but doesn't provide enough context for effective use, such as the format of the returned list, any prerequisites (e.g., authentication), or how it differs from similar tools like 'list_directory'. For a tool in this environment, more detail is needed to be fully helpful.
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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.
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: 'アクセス可能なパスの一覧を表示します' (displays a list of accessible paths). It uses a specific verb ('表示します' - displays) and resource ('パスの一覧' - list of paths), making the function understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_directory' which might also list paths, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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 sibling tools like 'list_directory' or explain scenarios where this tool is preferred (e.g., for checking permissions vs. browsing files). Without any context on usage or exclusions, the score is low.
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 for behavioral disclosure. While '作成します' (creates) implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose where files are created (path/directory), what permissions are needed, whether files persist, what happens if filename conflicts exist, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single Japanese sentence that directly states the purpose and context. Every word earns its place with no wasted text, and the testing context is efficiently included parenthetically. The structure is front-loaded with the core action immediately stated.
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?
For a file creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain where files are created, what format/content they contain, whether they're temporary or persistent, what permissions are required, or what the tool returns. The testing context hint is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and output information needed for proper tool invocation.
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%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'filename' parameter with its type, description, and default value. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.
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 ('作成します' - creates) and resource ('サンプルファイル' - sample file), specifying it's for testing purposes. It distinguishes from siblings like 'write_file' by indicating this creates a test file rather than a general file write operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other potential file creation tools beyond the testing context.
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 context with '(テスト用)' - for testing purposes, suggesting this tool should be used for testing scenarios rather than production file creation. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'write_file' or mention any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.
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. The description only states what the tool does ('get system information') without revealing any behavioral traits such as what specific information is returned, whether it requires special permissions, if there are rate limits, or how the information is formatted. This leaves significant gaps for a 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 in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool and is front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It states what the tool does but doesn't explain what 'system information' includes, the return format, or any behavioral context. For a tool with no annotations or output schema, more detail would be helpful to understand what to expect from the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters with high schema coverage is 4.
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 'システム情報を取得します' clearly states the purpose as 'get system information' with a specific verb ('取得します' - get/retrieve) and resource ('システム情報' - system information). It distinguishes from siblings like file operations (create_sample_file, read_file) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_allowed_paths which also retrieves system-related data.
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. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions, no mention of prerequisites, and no comparison to sibling tools like get_allowed_paths that might retrieve related system data.
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 mentions the restriction to allowed directories, which is useful, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or output format. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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 action and includes a crucial restriction in parentheses. There is no wasted language, and it communicates the essential information without 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 tool's complexity (a file read operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., file content as text, binary data, or an error structure), leaving the agent uncertain about the result format and potential edge cases.
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%, so the input schema already documents the 'filepath' parameter fully. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as path format examples or allowed directory specifics, resulting in a baseline score.
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 ('読み込みます' - reads) and resource ('ファイルの内容' - file content), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_directory' or 'get_allowed_paths', which also involve file system operations but serve different purposes.
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 context with the parenthetical note '(許可されたディレクトリのみ)' - only allowed directories, suggesting a restriction. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_directory' for browsing or 'write_file' for modifications, leaving the agent to infer appropriate contexts.
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 the constraint '許可されたディレクトリのみ' (only permitted directories), which is useful context about access restrictions. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., list of filenames, metadata), error handling for invalid paths, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied but not stated). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
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 in Japanese that conveys the core purpose and a key constraint. It's front-loaded with the main action ('一覧表示します') and includes no redundant information. Every part of the sentence adds value, making it appropriately concise for a simple tool.
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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and access restriction but lacks details on output format, error cases, or how it differs from siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral context would improve completeness, but it's not severely lacking for a simple listing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'dirpath' documented as '一覧表示するディレクトリのパス' (path of the directory to list). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as path format examples or constraints related to '許可されたディレクトリ' (permitted directories). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '一覧表示します' (list/display) for '指定されたディレクトリの内容' (contents of a specified directory). It specifies the verb (list) and resource (directory contents), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_allowed_paths' or 'read_file'. The mention of '許可されたディレクトリのみ' (only permitted directories) adds useful context but doesn't fully distinguish it from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through '許可されたディレクトリのみ' (only permitted directories), suggesting this tool is for browsing accessible directories rather than arbitrary paths. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_allowed_paths' (which might list permitted directories themselves) or 'read_file' (for file contents). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided.
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:

[![mcpSample MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/p-united/mcpSample/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/p-united/mcpSample)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcpSample MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/p-united/mcpSample/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/p-united/mcpSample)

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/p-united/mcpSample'

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