Skip to main content
Glama
rflpazini

mcp-api-gateway

by rflpazini
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: get_api_info retrieves metadata, check_api_health tests connectivity, and execute_api performs API calls. No overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_api_info, check_api_health, execute_api) using snake_case. The naming is uniform and predictable.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools is an appropriate scope for an API gateway server, covering information retrieval, health checking, and execution without being excessive or insufficient.

    Completeness4/5

    The tools cover the core functions of an API gateway: discovery, health, and execution. Minor gaps like authentication management or rate limiting are missing but not critical for basic use.

  • Average 3.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 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

  • 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?

    Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'execute any API endpoint' without disclosing authentication, rate limits, error handling, side effects, or response format. Not enough for a generic execution tool.

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

    Conciseness2/5

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

    The one-sentence description is too brief for a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations. It lacks structure, missing key information like usage context and return behavior.

    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?

    Given no output schema, no annotations, and 6 parameters (3 required), the description is insufficient. It fails to explain overall behavior, authentication, error handling, or response, leaving agents underinformed.

    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?

    Schema description coverage is 83%, so most parameters are documented. The description adds 'custom parameters' but no details beyond what's in the schema. Adequate but not enhanced.

    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 executes API endpoints with custom parameters. The verb 'execute' and resource 'API endpoint' are specific, but no differentiation from sibling tools like get_api_info or check_api_health is provided.

    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. The description does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or distinguish from get_api_info or check_api_health.

    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 bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It states the tool 'checks connectivity and health,' which implies a read operation, but it does not clarify whether this makes network calls (which could be slow or fail), whether it modifies state, or what happens if an API is unreachable. Given the absence of safety hints, 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.

    Conciseness4/5

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

    The description is a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. However, it could benefit from additional clarity on what 'health' entails or usage context. Still, it earns a 4 for efficiency.

    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?

    The tool has minimal complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects). The description covers its primary use case. However, it does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, status codes, or detailed health info) or any error conditions. For a tool with no output schema, slightly more context about expected output would improve completeness.

    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 input schema already provides a clear description for the sole parameter (api_name), indicating it is optional and checks all APIs if omitted. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so parameter semantics are adequately covered by the schema. Score of 3 is appropriate.

    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 ('check') and clearly identifies the resource ('connectivity and health of configured APIs'). It distinguishes from siblings: get_api_info likely retrieves configuration details, and execute_api runs operations, while this tool assesses health.

    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 over its siblings. It does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or context. For example, it doesn't mention that this tool is for connectivity checks only, while get_api_info might provide more detailed API metadata. This lack of context reduces clarity.

    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 present; description implies a read operation but does not disclose potential limitations or side effects. Adequate but minimal.

    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?

    Single sentence, highly concise, and front-loaded with the core purpose.

    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 the tool's simplicity, the description is sufficient. However, no output schema or extra context about response format is provided.

    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?

    Schema coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description. The tool description does not add further semantic detail 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 retrieves information about APIs and endpoints. It distinguishes from sibling tools that perform health checks or execute APIs.

    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?

    No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, but the optional api_name parameter implies usage for querying specific or all APIs. Sibling names provide 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-api-gateway MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-api-gateway 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/rflpazini/mcp-api-gateway'

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