Skip to main content
Glama

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.
  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools, making it trivially distinct.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The single tool name 'sum_two_numbers' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, and with only one tool, consistency is inherently perfect.

    Tool Count2/5

    A single tool is generally too few for a server's purpose unless it's extremely narrow; this feels thin and may not cover a meaningful domain adequately.

    Completeness1/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete, as a single addition tool does not provide any meaningful coverage or lifecycle for a domain, leaving obvious gaps for any practical use.

  • Average 2.7/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

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

  • 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

  • Behavior1/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add two numbers' only states the operation without any information about side effects, error handling, performance, or return format. It fails to provide meaningful behavioral context beyond the basic action.

    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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core purpose without any waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse quickly.

    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 tool's low complexity (simple arithmetic) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it lacks details on behavior and parameters that could be helpful for more robust use.

    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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for parameters 'a' and 'b'. The description 'Add two numbers' implies these are numbers to be added but doesn't specify their roles (e.g., which is first operand), constraints, or examples. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's type definitions.

    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 'Add two numbers' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('two numbers'). It's unambiguous about what the tool does. However, with no sibling tools to differentiate from, it cannot achieve the full 5 points for sibling differentiation.

    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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. With no sibling tools, there's no explicit comparison, but it lacks even basic usage context.

    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

mcp-server-demo MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-server-demo 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/ranjaka/mcp-server-demo'

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