Skip to main content
Glama
rapaul

moo2-mcp

by rapaul
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.0.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the game state: one returns comprehensive empire stats including turn, treasury, and unavailable fields, while the other returns only the turn number. There is no overlap in purpose.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow the consistent 'get_{resource}' pattern with snake_case, making their behavior predictable.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels undersized for a game interaction domain. A typical MCP server for a game would include a broader set of actions (e.g., send commands, manage colonies) beyond just reading status.

    Completeness1/5

    The tool surface is severely limited: it provides read-only access to turn and empire status, with no ability to influence the game, issue orders, or manage other game mechanics. This leaves major gaps for any agent trying to interact with the game.

  • Average 4.3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 23 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

  • 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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that unresolved fields are null and listed in 'unavailable', never guessed. It also discloses the runtime requirement. However, it does not explicitly state if the operation is read-only or has side effects, though 'read live' implies non-destructive.

    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 three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the main purpose, the second adds detail about field behavior, and the third states requirements. All sentences earn their place.

    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?

    Given no output schema, the description explains the return format (core stats, null for unavailable fields, unavailable list). It does not list all possible fields, but that's acceptable for a live-read tool. The requirement for DOSBox-X is stated.

    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?

    No parameters exist in the schema, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline for zero parameters is 4.

    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 it returns the player empire's core stats, read live from DOSBox-X. It specifies the verb 'Return', includes the resource 'player empire's core stats', and distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_turn' by mentioning it includes turn and additional fields.

    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 states the prerequisite that DOSBox-X must be running with a game in progress, but does not explicitly compare when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_turn' or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

    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?

    No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions live reading and error raising but doesn't explicitly state it's read-only or non-destructive. It could be more transparent about side effects, but it covers essential behavior.

    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?

    Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second adds prerequisites and error handling. No fluff, front-loaded with key information.

    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?

    Given no parameters, and an output schema (not shown but present), the description is complete: it explains what it does, prerequisites, and error behavior. No gaps for effective use.

    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?

    No parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context by specifying the tool returns the turn number live from DOSBox-X, which goes beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

    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?

    Clearly states it returns the current turn number from MOO2 via DOSBox-X. The verb 'return' and resource 'current turn number' are specific, and the description distinguishes it from sibling 'get_empire_status' which provides different data.

    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?

    Explicitly states prerequisites (DOSBox-X running MOO2 with a game in progress) and error behavior. Though it doesn't explicitly say when not to use, the context is clear and no alternatives are needed given the sibling is 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

moo2-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

moo2-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/rapaul/moo2-mcp'

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