PatternFly MCP Server
OfficialServer Quality Checklist
Latest release: v2.3.0
- Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one searches for documentation resources, the other retrieves the content. There is no functional overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5Both tool names follow a consistent camelCase verb-noun pattern (searchPatternFlyDocs, usePatternFlyDocs), making them predictable and easy to distinguish.
Tool Count3/5With only two tools, the server feels minimal for a full documentation surface. While it covers search and retrieval, additional tools like listing categories or listing all components would better match the apparent scope.
Completeness4/5The server covers the basic query-retrieve cycle for PatternFly documentation. The search tool supports wildcards to effectively list all components, so the main gap is the lack of a direct 'list all' tool, but it's a minor shortcoming.
Average 3.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 5 of 6 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 58 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
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.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns documentation and schemas and accepts up to 15 URIs, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error behavior. For a retrieval tool, this is a noticeable gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear structure: a brief intro, a usage section (numbered steps), and a return section. It is easy to scan and contains no redundant information, though it could be slightly more streamlined.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the fact that there is no output schema, the description covers the basic functionality and input options. However, it lacks details on error handling, what happens when a name or URI is invalid, and the exact format of the returned documentation. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is described in the schema. The description adds context by explaining the OR relationship between 'name' and 'urlList' and providing examples, which adds marginal value over the schema alone. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves markdown documentation and JSON schemas for PatternFly resources. The verb 'get' combined with the resource type conveys the purpose well, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'searchPatternFlyDocs' in the description, though it hints at the relationship by mentioning typical input from search results.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises that input is typically from searchPatternFlyDocs results and provides options for input (name or URL list). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The guidance is implied but not fully explicit.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes search behavior (case-insensitive, partial, wildcard) and return types. Implies read-only, non-destructive operation. Lack of explicit auth or rate limit info is acceptable for a search tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections for usage and returns. First sentence captures purpose. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, but description explains return values (bullet points). Parameters fully covered. Complexity moderate; workflow with sibling tool is explained. Complete enough for correct agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining wildcard support and version examples beyond schema descriptions. For searchQuery, it clarifies partial and full matches.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches PatternFly resources, returns component names with documentation URLs, and supports case-insensitive partial and wildcard matches. It distinguishes from sibling tool usePatternFlyDocs by explaining the workflow.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit usage steps: input a searchQuery, then use returned data with usePatternFlyDocs. Includes what is returned. No exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use mentioned, but the context is clear.
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:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/patternfly/patternfly-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server