Skip to main content
Glama
qianwj

Dianping MCP Server

by qianwj
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The three tools have clearly distinct purposes: searching for places, retrieving detailed info about a specific place, and checking session/authentication status. No overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (search_places, get_place_details, check_session), making the naming predictable and easy to understand.

    Tool Count4/5

    With 3 tools, the server is concise but covers the core functionality of searching and retrieving details for a local services platform. The inclusion of a session-check tool is practical, and the count feels appropriate for the scope.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool surface covers the essential read operations—search and detail retrieval—along with session verification. For a read-oriented API, this is reasonably complete. Minor gaps like listing categories or handling pagination could exist but are not critical.

  • Average 3.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 2 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

  • 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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description restates the search behavior but adds no new context about rate limits, pagination, response format, or other traits. No contradiction with annotations.

    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 short sentence that directly states purpose. It is front-loaded and efficient with no wasted words. Could be slightly expanded with usage context without harming conciseness.

    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?

    For a simple search tool with fully described parameters and informative annotations, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings and does not reinforce the open-world behavior implied by the annotation.

    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 baseline is 3. The description only mentions city and keyword, which mirrors the schema. It adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond what is already in the input 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 specifies the verb (search), resource (local businesses on Dianping), and constraints (by city and keyword). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools: get_place_details (details of a specific place) and check_session (auth).

    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 (searching with city and keyword) but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives or when not to use. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

    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?

    Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile and external dependency. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., what happens if the session is invalid, whether it modifies state). It is consistent with annotations but does not enhance transparency beyond what annotations provide.

    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, well-front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy. Every word is necessary; no filler or repetition.

    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 zero-parameter tool, the description fully covers what the tool does: checking local browser, login status, and security verification. There is no output schema or nested complexity, and the annotations already provide safety and openness context. The description, combined with annotations, is complete for agent invocation.

    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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), so schema description coverage is effectively 100%. Per guidelines, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, as none exist.

    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 uses specific verbs and resources ('检查本地浏览器、登录状态及是否需要完成安全验证'), clearly indicating the tool checks the session state. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_places and get_place_details, which focus on data retrieval rather than session verification.

    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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention which scenarios require session checking, nor does it explain when to skip it. Sibling tools exist but no differentiation or usage context is provided.

    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?

    Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by specifying exactly what data is returned (address, phone, hours, rating, selected reviews), which is beyond the annotation scope. No contradictions.

    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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes to the purpose, with no extraneous information.

    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?

    For a simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and return data. It could mention the output format (e.g., JSON object) but is otherwise complete for the given complexity.

    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 baseline is 3. The description adds context that the 'shop' parameter should come from search results, which is a meaningful addition. However, the 'reviewLimit' parameter is not mentioned in the description, and the added value for 'shop' is modest, so a score of 3 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?

    The description clearly states the tool reads store details (address, phone, hours, rating, selected reviews) using a shop ID or URL from search results. It uses a specific verb ('读取' - read) and resource ('店铺详情' - store details), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'search_places' (search for places) and 'check_session' (session check).

    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 gives context by specifying that the shop ID/URL should come from search results ('根据搜索结果中的...'), which guides when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, though the sibling tools are naturally different.

    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

dp-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

dp-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/qianwj/dp-mcp'

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