Skip to main content
Glama
ricleedo

MCP Server Boilerplate

by ricleedo
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript

Server Quality Checklist

42%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one is for creating MCP servers (get-mcp-docs) and the other is for greeting users (hello-world). There is no overlap or ambiguity between them, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.

    Naming Consistency2/5

    The naming is inconsistent: get-mcp-docs uses kebab-case with a verb-noun structure, while hello-world uses kebab-case but is a phrase rather than a clear verb-noun pattern. This mixed style reduces predictability and readability.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, this server feels too thin for a boilerplate purpose, which typically implies a foundational set of utilities. The scope seems limited, lacking coverage for common operations like setup, configuration, or testing that might be expected in a boilerplate.

    Completeness2/5

    Inferred domain is MCP server development, but the tool surface is severely incomplete: it includes a documentation tool and a greeting, but misses essential CRUD/lifecycle operations (e.g., initialize, configure, deploy, test). This will likely cause agent failures in practical workflows.

  • Average 2.3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 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

  • Behavior1/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Make an MCP server' suggests a creation/write operation, but the description doesn't clarify what this action entails, whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if a server with that name already exists, or what the expected outcome is. No behavioral traits are disclosed beyond the vague verb 'make'.

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

    Conciseness3/5

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

    The description is extremely concise at just three words, but this brevity comes at the cost of meaningful information. While it's not verbose or repetitive, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The single sentence doesn't waste words but fails to provide necessary context.

    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 the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the description is insufficiently complete. For a tool that appears to perform some kind of creation operation (based on the verb 'make'), the description should explain what gets created, what the result looks like, and any important constraints. The current description leaves too many unanswered questions about the tool's behavior and outcomes.

    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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'name' clearly documented as 'The name of the MCP server.' The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose2/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description 'Make an MCP server' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get-mcp-docs' in different words. It doesn't specify what 'make' means in this context (create? generate? fetch?), nor does it clarify what 'MCP server' refers to. The description fails to distinguish this tool from its sibling 'hello-world' or explain what resource it operates on.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines1/5

    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. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparison with the sibling 'hello-world' tool. Users are left with no information about when this tool should be selected over other options.

    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. 'Say hello to the user' suggests a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what format the greeting takes. The description is too minimal to provide meaningful behavioral context.

    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 at just four words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool.

    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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'say hello' actually does (e.g., returns a greeting message), leaving the agent to guess about the tool's behavior and output. For even a simple tool, more context would be helpful.

    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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'name' documented as 'The name of the user'. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose3/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description 'Say hello to the user' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('say hello') and target ('user'), but it's somewhat vague about what exactly 'say hello' entails. It doesn't distinguish from the sibling tool 'get-mcp-docs', though that's understandable given their different domains.

    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 alternatives or in what context it's appropriate. The description implies it's for greeting users, but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

    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

media-boilerplate-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

media-boilerplate-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/ricleedo/media-boilerplate-mcp'

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