Skip to main content
Glama
rach16

MCP Server for Session 13

by rach16
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

42%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation2/5

    get_company_news and get_marketing_news have significant overlap, both retrieving news about marketing tech companies, making it unclear which to use. The other tools (roll_dice, web_search) are unrelated, further complicating disambiguation.

    Naming Consistency2/5

    Two tools follow a 'get_X_news' pattern, but roll_dice and web_search break that pattern, using different verb styles. The naming is inconsistent across the set.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 4 tools spanning news, dice rolling, and web search, the count feels arbitrary and too small for a coherent domain. The server appears to bundle unrelated utilities.

    Completeness1/5

    The coverage is severely incomplete for any clear purpose. If focused on marketing news, dice rolling and web search are extraneous; if general, many common operations are missing. The set lacks a coherent domain.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • No commit activity data available
    • 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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations provided. The description does not disclose randomness, side effects, or return format. For a simple tool, more transparency is needed.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness3/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    Single sentence is concise but lacks necessary detail for a 2-parameter tool. Front-loads the action but omits important context.

    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?

    No output schema; description does not explain return values. Minimal details for notation and num_rolls leave the tool incomplete.

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

    Parameters1/5

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

    Schema description coverage is 0%. Description fails to explain parameter meaning, e.g., notation format or num_rolls behavior, leaving critical gaps.

    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 'Roll the dice with the given notation' clearly states the action (roll) and resource (dice), implying dice-rolling. It distinguishes from unrelated siblings (news, web search).

    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?

    No guidance on when to use this tool or its alternatives. Siblings are unrelated, but no 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.

  • Behavior1/5

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

    No annotations provided, and the description lacks any disclosure of behavioral traits such as rate limits, pagination, or result format.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness3/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    Single sentence with no waste, but overly minimal without any structure or additional context.

    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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is incomplete; lacks details on return values, safety, or usage scenarios.

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

    Parameters1/5

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

    Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond restating the parameter; does not explain how to formulate the query or any constraints.

    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 verb 'search' and resource 'web', and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_company_news and get_marketing_news which are more specific.

    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?

    No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions or context provided.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose if the tool is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or any rate limits. Only describes basic functionality.

    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?

    Concise paragraph followed by a structured Args list. Front-loaded with purpose. Could trim minor redundancy but overall efficient.

    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?

    Adequately covers parameters and purpose given no annotations or output schema. Lacks guidance on use cases, return format, or limitations, but is sufficient for basic usage.

    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 0%, but the description's Args section explains each parameter (company, category, num_articles) with examples and defaults, adding meaning beyond the schema's type and default values.

    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 retrieves the latest marketing and business news from specific companies like ZoomInfo and 6sense. The verb 'Get' and resource 'marketing and business news' are specific, but lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tool 'get_company_news'.

    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?

    Provides examples of companies and categories but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_company_news'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites 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?

    The description indicates a read operation (get news) with no destructive hints. However, without annotations, it does not disclose details like rate limits, pagination, or source of news, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

    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 short and mostly clear, though the Args block duplicates schema information. The core purpose sentence is well-placed. Minor redundancy but no unnecessary verbosity.

    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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic function. It is missing output format details (e.g., headlines vs. full articles) and potential constraints, but is minimally adequate.

    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?

    With 0% schema coverage, the description adds semantic value by explaining each parameter: 'Company name to search for' and 'Number of articles to return (default: 3)'. This compensates for the bare schema (which only has titles).

    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 gets company-specific news, with examples (e.g., ZoomInfo, 6sense). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_marketing_news' (broader marketing news) and 'web_search' (general web results).

    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?

    No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for company-specific news, but lacks when-not-to-use criteria or references to sibling tools.

    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

AIE8-MCP-Session13 MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

AIE8-MCP-Session13 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/rach16/AIE8-MCP-Session13'

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