Skip to main content
Glama
ribbit-br

PEP MCP Server

by ribbit-br
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The three tools have clearly distinct purposes: 'get' retrieves a specific PEP by number, 'list' enumerates all active PEPs, and 'search' finds PEPs by title query. No functional overlap exists between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_pep, list_peps, search_peps). The pluralization appropriately matches the return cardinality (singular for single retrieval, plural for collection operations).

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools is the ideal minimum for a read-only document server, covering the essential access patterns: enumeration, search, and specific retrieval. The scope is tightly focused without bloat.

    Completeness3/5

    While the basic read operations are present, notable gaps exist: list_peps and search_peps are restricted to 'active' PEPs only with no way to access other statuses, search_peps only searches titles (not content or authors), and there are no filtering options for metadata like author or Python version.

  • Average 3.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.

    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 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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'active' PEPs and 'titles' as scope filters, but fails to explain matching logic (partial vs exact), case sensitivity, or what 'active' specifically means. The existence of an output schema reduces some burden, but safety/permission hints are absent.

    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, efficient sentence with the action front-loaded. There is no redundant or wasted text; every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

    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 (single string parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, the lack of annotations (safety hints) and zero schema descriptions leaves gaps that the description does not fully fill, preventing a higher score.

    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 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It references a 'query string' which maps to the 'query' parameter and implies its purpose (searching titles), providing basic semantic context. However, it lacks format details, examples, or constraints that would fully compensate for the bare schema.

    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 verb (Search), resource (active PEP titles), and scope limitation (titles only, active status). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'get_pep' (retrieval by ID) and 'list_peps' (enumeration) by specifying a text search function, though it doesn't explicitly name the 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?

    The description implies when to use the tool (when searching for PEPs by title text), but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer 'get_pep' or 'list_peps' instead, nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations that would help an agent select correctly.

    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. It discloses behavioral traits by specifying 'active' PEPs only and 'compact metadata' output format, but fails to state safety properties (read-only, non-destructive) or pagination 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?

    Single sentence, front-loaded with verb, no redundant words. Appropriate length for a zero-parameter listing tool.

    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 presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation) and zero input parameters, the description is sufficiently complete. Mentions 'compact metadata' to set expectations, though could note pagination if applicable.

    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?

    Input schema contains zero parameters. Per evaluation rules, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4.

    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?

    States specific verb ('List'), resource ('Python PEPs'), and scope ('active', 'compact metadata'). The 'compact metadata' phrase helps distinguish from sibling get_pep which likely returns full details, though explicit differentiation from search_peps is missing.

    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 no guidance on when to select this tool versus siblings (get_pep for individual retrieval, search_peps for filtered queries). No mention of prerequisites or when not to use.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses critical behavioral traits: full body is capped by default, setting max_full_content_chars=0 removes the cap, and uncapped documents 'can be very large.' Does not mention rate limits or auth requirements.

    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?

    Three sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with core purpose ('Get a PEP by number'), followed by usage guidance for specific parameters. Every sentence earns its 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 the output schema exists, the description appropriately omits return value details. With 0% schema coverage, it compensates by explaining parameter semantics. Could strengthen by explicitly contrasting with list_peps for enumeration use cases.

    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 coverage is 0%, requiring description to compensate. Successfully adds meaning for all three parameters: 'pep' is referenced as 'by number,' 'query' is for 'excerpts,' and 'max_full_content_chars' controls capping behavior with explicit warning about large document sizes.

    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?

    States specific verb ('Get') + resource ('PEP') + identifier method ('by number'). The mention of using 'query for excerpts' effectively distinguishes this retrieval tool from the sibling search_peps and list_peps tools.

    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?

    Provides clear guidance on when to use the 'query' parameter (for excerpts) versus full retrieval, and explains the 'max_full_content_chars' parameter behavior. Lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer search_peps over this tool for search scenarios.

    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-pep-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-pep-server 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/ribbit-br/mcp-pep-server'

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