MCP Server
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Server capabilities have not been inspected yet.
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| api-clientD | ApiClient tool description |
| data-processorD | DataProcessor tool description |
| example_toolC | An example tool that processes messages |
| file-handlerD | FileHandler tool description |
| my-toolD | MyTool tool description |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 5 tools
The tools have distinct names like api-client, data-processor, and file-handler, which suggest different purposes, but descriptions are generic (e.g., 'ApiClient tool description'), leaving some ambiguity about their specific functions. Without detailed descriptions, it's unclear if there's overlap in processing or handling tasks.
Naming is inconsistent with mixed conventions: hyphen-case (api-client, data-processor, my-tool), snake_case (example_tool), and camelCase (FileHandler). This lack of a predictable pattern makes the tool set harder to navigate and could confuse agents.
With 5 tools, the count is reasonable for a general-purpose MCP server, suggesting a moderate scope. It's not too thin or heavy, though the generic nature of the tools makes it hard to assess if this number fits a specific domain perfectly.
Given the generic tool names and descriptions, it's impossible to infer a clear domain, making completeness assessment difficult. However, the set lacks obvious CRUD or lifecycle coverage, and tools like 'example_tool' and 'my-tool' seem vague, indicating significant gaps for any specific workflow.