Skip to main content
Glama
rilexus

delta-mcp-prototype

by rilexus

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.
  • Latest release: v1.0.2

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools serve completely different purposes: one provides current date/time, the other fetches media mentions with many filters. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case ('current_date_and_time', 'fetch_mentions'), making them predictable and easy to understand.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for a media monitoring prototype. The inclusion of a generic date/time utility alongside a specialized mentions fetcher suggests a lack of focused scope, but it is not extreme.

    Completeness2/5

    The fetch_mentions tool is comprehensive with many filters, but there are no tools for creating, updating, or managing mentions. The date/time tool is unrelated to the core domain, leaving significant gaps for a full media monitoring workflow.

  • Average 4.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 2 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 ISC 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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination, sorting, and the return value structure (total count, list with fields). However, it omits any mention of rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects. Overall, good but not exhaustive.

    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 two sentences long with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second encapsulates the key features. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

    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 has 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main use case and return values. It could be more explicit about how filters combine (e.g., AND logic) but is largely complete for a listing tool.

    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 100%, so every parameter is documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond listing some filter examples, which is already covered. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool fetches media mentions and lists many filter options, making the purpose specific and distinct from the only sibling tool (current_date_and_time) which is unrelated.

    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 explains what the tool does and its capabilities but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. Given the absence of relevant siblings, it is adequate but lacks exclusions.

    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?

    The description correctly states the tool returns current date and time, but lacks details such as timezone handling, precision, or whether it's server-local time. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and this omission makes it partially opaque.

    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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Every word adds value; no redundancy or unnecessary information.

    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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose and usage context. It could optionally mention output format or timezone, but is already sufficient for correct invocation.

    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?

    There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds value by providing context on when the tool is useful, which goes beyond the schema. For zero parameters, a baseline of 4 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 clearly states the tool returns the current date and time, with specific examples like 'what day is it?' and computing relative date ranges. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'fetch_mentions' which handles a completely different domain.

    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?

    The description explicitly tells when to call the tool ('whenever you need to know today's date or the current time') and provides concrete usage examples. While there is no direct mention of when not to use it, the sibling tool's purpose is sufficiently different that confusion is unlikely.

    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

delta-mcp-prototype MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

delta-mcp-prototype 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/rilexus/delta-mcp-prototype'

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