Enterprise SDLC MCP

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource (catalog agents, catalog skills, project skills, manifest), but list_skills vs list_project_skills and get_skill vs get_project_skill could be confused if descriptions are not read closely. The clear qualifiers reduce ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the consistent list_<plural>/get_<singular> pattern, with project-scoped variants prefixed by project_. This is a uniform, predictable naming convention.
Tool Count5/5
7 tools is well-scoped for a read-only catalog server covering agents, skills, project overlays, and manifest resolution. No tool feels redundant or missing.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for this domain: listing and getting catalog agents, catalog skills, project-local skills, plus the manifest. No obvious dead ends for the server's stated purpose.
Average 3.4/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 2.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 12 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It hints at processing with 'resolved' but does not disclose side effects, permissions, error behavior, or the optional manifest_path behavior. There is no contradiction with annotations since none exist.
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?
A single sentence with no redundant wording, efficiently conveying the core action and result. It is appropriately concise.
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?
The description lacks context about what 'resolved' means, the relationship between agent_id and manifest_path, and when to use this tool. The output schema covers return structure, but key selection and behavioral information is missing.
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 description does not explain either parameter. While the schema defines agent_id as required and manifest_path as optional, the description's reference to 'given project manifest' is ambiguous relative to optional manifest_path. No additional parameter semantics are provided.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource ('resolved agent role markdown') and context ('for the given project manifest'). This distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like list_agents, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings such as list_agents or get_project_manifest. The description only states what it returns, not the circumstances for its use.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the return value and offers no insight into side effects, error conditions, permissions, or the meaning of 'resolved'. As a read operation, it fails to explicitly state that it is non-mutating or what inputs affect the resolution.
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-structured sentence that immediately states the action and object. It contains no filler or redundancy, and all words contribute to understanding the tool's purpose.
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?
While the output schema exists and covers return value structure, the description lacks essential context about how the skill_id and manifest_path interact, what resolution entails, and when to choose this over the many sibling tools. The tool is simple, but the description leaves notable gaps in operational context.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain either parameter. 'skill_id' is never mentioned, and 'manifest_path' is only alluded to via 'for the given project manifest'. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving the agent to infer parameter purposes from names alone.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource ('resolved skill checklist markdown') and context ('for the given project manifest'). This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from siblings like list_skills or get_project_manifest, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_project_skill.
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 usage context is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_project_skill or list_project_skills, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. The implied use case (need a resolved checklist) is present but not explicit.
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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the manifest path is invalid, or whether side effects exist. The word 'Return' suggests safety but is not explicit.
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?
A single sentence efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, with the verb and resource front-loaded. No wasted words.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain the optional parameter's behavior or any error handling, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without guessing.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. However, it does not mention the 'manifest_path' parameter, what it controls, or what happens when it is null. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaningful value beyond 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 the tool returns a parsed project manifest used for placeholder resolution. This is a specific verb+resource and naturally distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on agents, skills, and project skills.
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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a purpose (placeholder resolution) but lacks any statement of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The 'Read' verb clearly signals a non-mutating operation, but it does not disclose behavior on missing files, whether the overlay merges with global skills, or error conditions. It is minimal yet acceptable for a simple read tool.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, with no redundant or extraneous content. Every word contributes to the core purpose.
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?
While the tool is simple and an output schema exists, the description is incomplete for invocation because it does not explain the parameters at all, especially manifest_path. This leaves a critical gap in the agent's ability to use the tool correctly.
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 provides zero semantic support for the parameters (skill_filename, manifest_path). It mentions neither parameter nor hints at their roles, so the agent cannot infer meaning beyond the property names themselves.
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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('project-local overlay skill') with a clarifying parenthetical about domain-specific checklists. The 'project-local' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling get_skill, making the purpose unmistakable.
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 its use for project-local skills, but it does not explicitly contrast with get_skill or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It lacks direct alternatives or exclusions, though the intent is inferable from the naming.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that it lists filenames only (not contents) and indicates the default path, but it does not mention edge cases like missing manifests, recursion, or whether only .md files are returned. For a simple read-only list tool, this is minimally adequate.
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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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?
Given the output schema exists and there is only one optional parameter, the description covers the core purpose and scope. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance relative to sibling tools and doesn't fully explain the manifest_path parameter, so it is not complete enough for seamless tool selection in a broader context.
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?
The schema has one parameter (manifest_path) with no description and 0% schema coverage. The description indirectly explains the default behavior of the parameter ('.skills/ by default') but does not explicitly state that manifest_path overrides this default. This adds some meaning but leaves the parameter's role implicit.
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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('markdown skill filenames in the project overlay'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_skills or get_skill by scoping to the project overlay. The default path (.skills/) adds helpful specificity.
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 makes it clear that this tool operates on the project overlay, which implies a distinction from global skill listing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over list_skills or when not to use it, and no alternative tools are named.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'List' but does not state whether it returns all items, supports pagination, or any side effects. This is minimal but not misleading, so a 2 is appropriate.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no fluff or redundant information, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
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?
The tool is simple (no parameters, straightforward list operation) and an output schema exists, so detailed return value explanation is unnecessary. The phrase 'enterprise catalog' provides essential scope context relative to sibling tools, making the description complete enough for this use case.
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 schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter information to add. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for tools with no parameters, as the description cannot add value beyond what the schema already communicates.
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 action ('List') and the resource ('enterprise catalog SDLC skills/checklists'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_project_skills by emphasizing 'enterprise catalog', indicating a global scope rather than project-specific.
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?
Usage context is implied by the phrase 'enterprise catalog' versus project-specific skills, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like list_project_skills or get_skill. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are provided.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' clearly conveys a read-only operation, but no additional behavioral context such as return format, pagination, or authorization is disclosed. The description is minimal, providing only the basic action and resource.
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, concise sentence that is immediately understandable. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.
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 tool with zero parameters and an output schema available, the description is sufficient to understand the tool's purpose. The output schema covers return values, and the simple nature of the operation does not require extensive context. Minor gaps exist in usage guidance but that is addressed separately.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter details to clarify. The description adds context about the type of agents listed, which is meaningful. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not detract from that.
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 a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'enterprise catalog build-time agent roles', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_agent (singular) and list_skills (different resource). The scope is well-defined.
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 for listing all agent roles, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_agent for a specific agent. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, leaving the guidance implied rather than explicit.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![enterprise-sdlc-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/raghuram-chittibomma/enterprise-sdlc-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/raghuram-chittibomma/enterprise-sdlc-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![enterprise-sdlc-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/raghuram-chittibomma/enterprise-sdlc-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/raghuram-chittibomma/enterprise-sdlc-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/raghuram-chittibomma/enterprise-sdlc-mcp'

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