Skip to main content
Glama
piebro

Echo MCP Server

by piebro
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap between tools. The single tool 'echo_tool' has a clear and distinct purpose that cannot be mistaken for any other tool in this set.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The naming is perfectly consistent as there is only one tool following the verb_noun pattern 'echo_tool'. No other naming conventions exist to create inconsistency.

    Tool Count2/5

    A single tool is too few for most practical server purposes, making the set feel thin and limited. While it might be appropriate for a minimal demo or test server, it lacks the depth expected for typical MCP server functionality.

    Completeness3/5

    For a simple echo functionality, the single tool covers the basic operation. However, there are no related operations (e.g., variations like echo_reverse or echo_log) that might be expected in a more complete echo service, leaving minor gaps.

  • Average 2.2/5 across 1 of 1 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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'Echo a message as a tool' which reveals nothing about what the tool actually does behaviorally - whether it's a read operation, a transformation, a test utility, or something else. It doesn't mention any side effects, permissions needed, rate limits, or what 'echo' means in practical terms.

    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 extremely concise at just 5 words, which is appropriate for a simple tool. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of meaningful content - it's brief but under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

    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 tool with 1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, how to use it, what the parameter means, or what to expect as output. The description fails to provide the minimal context needed for an agent to understand and use this tool effectively.

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

    Parameters2/5

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

    The schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information about the 'message' parameter. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, offering no compensation for the schema's lack of documentation. The description should explain what kind of message is expected or what the parameter represents, but it remains completely silent on this.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose2/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description 'Echo a message as a tool' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'echo_tool' without adding meaningful specificity. It uses the verb 'echo' which matches the name, but doesn't explain what 'echo' means in this context or what resource is being acted upon. No sibling tools exist to differentiate from, but the description remains vague about the actual function.

    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, what scenarios it's designed for, or any prerequisites. With no sibling tools, there's no need to differentiate from alternatives, but the description doesn't indicate any context for usage. It's a minimal statement that offers no practical guidance to an agent.

    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

echo-mcp-server-for-testing MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

echo-mcp-server-for-testing 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/piebro/echo-mcp-server-for-testing'

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