Skip to main content
Glama
pawelojdowski

UODO MCP

by pawelojdowski
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.8

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a distinct purpose: listing search fields, searching decisions, and retrieving a full decision. No overlap in functionality.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools use a consistent 'uodo_verb_noun' pattern (get_decision, list_search_fields, search_decisions), making them predictable.

    Tool Count5/5

    With only 3 tools, the server is tightly scoped to searching and retrieving UODO decisions, which is appropriate for this domain.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool set covers the full workflow: discover fields, search with filters, and retrieve full decisions. No obvious gaps for the intended use case.

  • Average 4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    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

  • This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.

  • 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

  • Behavior3/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses a side effect (saving .md archive in local mode) but does not clarify read-only nature, permissions, or other behaviors beyond the basic fetch operation.

    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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and efficiently conveys key information without unnecessary words. Slightly more brevity could be achieved, but it remains effective.

    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 (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the return content (metadata, sentence, justification) and the local file behavior, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to understand input and output.

    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% for the single parameter 'id', and the description merely repeats the schema's context ('ID decyzji z wyników uodo_search_decisions'), adding no additional meaning or syntax details beyond what the schema already provides.

    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 fetches a full decision by ID, including metadata, sentence, and justification, and distinguishes it from sibling tools (uodo_search_decisions, uodo_list_search_fields) by focusing on retrieval of a single detailed item.

    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 when you have a decision ID from uodo_search_decisions but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Siblings are listed but no direct comparison or exclusion criteria.

    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 mentions sorting (newest first) and that results contain IDs, but it does not disclose other traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond mentioning the 'from' parameter. The description adds some value but is not comprehensive.

    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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, query modes, principle, and other parameters. Each sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise but remains efficient and easy to parse.

    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 has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers usage and all parameters adequately. It mentions that results contain IDs for downstream use. However, it does not describe the output structure in detail, which would be helpful for the agent.

    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?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning for the crucial 'query' parameter by explaining the AND/OR modes with examples. This goes beyond the schema's simple description. For other parameters, the description aligns well with the schema.

    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 searches UODO decisions and sorts by newest first. It indirectly distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning that results contain IDs to be used with uodo_get_decision. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings, so it's clear but not top-tier.

    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 detailed guidance on when and how to use the tool, including two query modes (AND vs OR), explanation of other parameters, and a directive not to supplement results with own knowledge. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficient.

    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, but description clearly indicates it returns a list, implying a read-only operation. However, it doesn't mention any potential side effects or limitations, though none are expected for a list 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?

    Two concise sentences, first stating purpose, second giving usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded effectively.

    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?

    Covers purpose and usage well, but lacks details about the structure of the returned list (e.g., example format). However, given zero parameters and no output schema, it is largely complete for its simplicity.

    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?

    No parameters exist, so schema coverage is trivial. Baseline score of 4 applies as description adds no parameter information, which 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?

    Description clearly states it returns a list of available search fields with data types, and explicitly ties it to the sibling tool 'uodo_search_decisions', distinguishing its purpose as a helper for filter options.

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

    Usage Guidelines5/5

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

    Directly instructs to use it to know possible filters for 'uodo_search_decisions', providing clear context and linking to the primary search tool.

    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

uodo-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

uodo-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/pawelojdowski/uodo-mcp'

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