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: 'get-mcp-docs' is for server creation/documentation, while 'hello-world' is for user interaction. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions, making tool selection straightforward.

    Naming Consistency2/5

    The naming is inconsistent: 'get-mcp-docs' uses kebab-case with a verb-object structure, while 'hello-world' uses kebab-case but lacks a clear verb and is more phrase-like. This mixed convention reduces predictability and readability across the tool set.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, this server feels too thin for a 'boilerplate' purpose, which typically implies a foundational or example set. The count is insufficient to demonstrate meaningful coverage or utility, making it borderline inadequate for its apparent scope.

    Completeness2/5

    For a boilerplate server, there are significant gaps: it lacks core operations like setup, configuration, testing, or deployment tools. The two tools provided do not form a coherent or complete surface for server development, leaving obvious dead ends for agents.

  • Average 2.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored. Lowest: 1.7/5.

    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

  • Behavior1/5

    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 but fails completely. 'Make an MCP server' doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, whether it has side effects, what happens when invoked, or what kind of output to expect. The description provides zero behavioral context beyond the ambiguous 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.

    Conciseness2/5

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

    While the description is extremely concise (just three words), this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The single phrase 'Make an MCP server' doesn't provide enough information to be useful, making it inefficient rather than appropriately concise. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide sufficient value.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness1/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given that this is a tool with one parameter but no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. For a tool that presumably performs some action (implied by 'Make'), the description should explain what happens when invoked, what the result looks like, and any important behavioral characteristics. The current description leaves the agent guessing about the tool's purpose and behavior.

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

    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' without clarifying what 'make' means in this context. It doesn't specify what resource is being created or what the tool actually does - whether it generates documentation, creates a server instance, or something else. The description fails to distinguish this tool from its sibling 'hello-world' or explain what specific action is performed.

    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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when this tool should be selected over the sibling 'hello-world' tool. The agent receives no usage instructions beyond the vague description text.

    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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Say hello to the user' implies a read-only, non-destructive action, but it doesn't specify output format, side effects, or any constraints like rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?

    The description 'Say hello to the user' is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core purpose effectively.

    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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks details on output, usage context, or behavioral traits. Without an output schema, the description should ideally explain return values, but for such a simple tool, it meets the bare minimum.

    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' documented as 'The name of the user'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score 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.

    Purpose4/5

    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 ('to the user'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get-mcp-docs' which presumably retrieves documentation. However, it doesn't specify the exact output format or mechanism, keeping it at a 4 rather than a perfect 5.

    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. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or comparison to the sibling tool 'get-mcp-docs'. It simply states what the tool does without indicating appropriate usage 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

reddit-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

reddit-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/reddit-mcp'

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