Skip to main content
Glama
przemonides

CRU MCP Server

by przemonides
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one searches for contracts with various filters, the other retrieves full details of a specific contract. No overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names follow a consistent pattern: 'rejestr_umow_' prefix with a verb (search/get) followed by 'contracts' or 'contract'. The naming is predictable and unambiguous.

    Tool Count4/5

    With only 2 tools, the server is minimal but well-scoped for a read-only registry query domain. It feels slightly thin, but each tool serves a distinct purpose without unnecessary bloat.

    Completeness5/5

    For a read-only contract registry, the pair of search and get detail covers the essential functionality completely. No obvious gaps—users can find contracts and retrieve full information.

  • Average 4.4/5 across 2 of 2 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

  • 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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. Description adds critical context: requires API key, notes unverified query path (readiness caveat), and confirms no write operations. This enriches transparency beyond annotations. Could detail error behavior or performance limits, but fine.

    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?

    Description is efficiently structured: purpose first, then requirements/warning, then bullet-pointed parameter list. No redundant sentences, all information is relevant.

    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?

    With 10 parameters and no output schema, description covers all parameters, mentions return format, and adds operational caveats (API key, verification status). Lacks explicit info on pagination behavior or error handling, but sufficient for a search tool.

    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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds grouping of related parameters (date range, value range), provides natural language explanations, and clarifies defaults. Offers some extra semantics over schema, but not deeply transformative.

    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 the tool searches contracts in the Central Register of Contracts JSFP via API, distinguishes from sibling 'rejestr_umow_get_contract' by focusing on search versus retrieval, and specifies read-only operation.

    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?

    Provides context for usage (requires API key, read-only) but does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool over the sibling or what alternatives exist. Implicit guidance from sibling name, but description lacks direct differentiation.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior5/5

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

    Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds critical behavioral details: requires a configured CRU_API_KEY, warns that the query path is an unverified assumption, and specifies the return format options (markdown or json).

    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 concise, starting with the main action, then requirements, a warning, args, and returns. Every sentence provides value, though the structure could be slightly more streamlined.

    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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the required API key, the return content (pages, subject, value, etc.), and its relationship to the sibling tool. No gaps remain.

    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 coverage is 100%. The description adds context: contract_id is expected to come from search, response_format has a default of 'markdown' and can be 'json'. This is incremental value over the schema.

    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 that the tool retrieves full details of a single contract from the Central Contract Register by its identifier. It distinguishes from the sibling tool rejestr_umow_search_contracts, which returns a list of contracts.

    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 implies usage after obtaining a contract ID from rejestr_umow_search_contracts, providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the usage scenario is well-defined.

    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

CRU_MCP MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

CRU_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/przemonides/CRU_MCP'

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