Skip to main content
Glama
rimysore

standupbot-mcp

by rimysore
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct scope: single repo, single user, or multiple users. No overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent 'get_' prefix followed by descriptive noun_phrase pattern.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools cover the essential use cases for a standup bot without being excessive or insufficient.

    Completeness4/5

    The set covers repo-level pulse, individual standup, and team standup. A minor gap might be the lack of configurability beyond time range, but core functionality is complete.

  • Average 3.5/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 4 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 MIT 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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool fetches and formats activity, but lacks details on authentication requirements (beyond parameter hints), rate limits, error handling, or side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.

    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, well-formed sentence that effectively conveys the tool's purpose. It is concise and front-loaded, though minor rephrasing could improve scanability.

    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 description covers the tool's basic function but lacks details on output format, error scenarios, and explicit usage guidelines compared to siblings. Given the absence of an output schema, the description should better explain what the standup report looks like.

    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?

    All three parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds the context of 'format as a standup report', which is not in the schema, but does not provide additional semantics for individual parameters beyond what the schema already offers.

    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?

    Description clearly states the tool fetches user's GitHub activity for a standup report, listing specific items (commits, PRs, reviews, issues). The verb 'fetch' and resource 'your GitHub activity' are specific, and the scope (personal) helps distinguish from sibling tools like get_repo_pulse (repo-level) and get_standup_multi (multi-user).

    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 implies usage for personal standup reports but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (get_repo_pulse, get_standup_multi). No when-not or prerequisite conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

    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 provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose behaviors like rate limits, authentication requirements (though github_token is in schema), or what happens for users with no activity. Return format of report is not described.

    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?

    Single sentence, concise. Could benefit from bullet points or structured format for clarity, but no wasted words.

    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?

    For a tool with no output schema, description does not explain the report's return format or contents. Adequate but incomplete for an agent to fully understand what it gets.

    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 descriptions. Description adds minimal value beyond schema, only providing an example of usernames. 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?

    Description clearly states verb 'Fetch', resource 'GitHub activity for multiple users', and outcome 'combined standup report'. It distinguishes from siblings: get_standup likely does single user, get_repo_pulse does repo-level.

    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 when/when-not or alternatives mentioned. Implies usage for team standup but lacks guidance on when to prefer over sibling tools.

    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 full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements (though github_token param implies auth), rate limits, pagination, or what happens when no activity is found. The description only states what the tool does, not its behavioral characteristics.

    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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every word contributes meaning.

    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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but lacks details on output structure, error handling, and pagination. It provides the core purpose but leaves the agent needing to infer response format from the description of activity types.

    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 100% with all parameters described. The description adds value by specifying the types of activity returned (commits, PRs, issues), which is not in the schema. This provides context beyond the parameter names and descriptions.

    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 verb 'Get', the resource 'recent activity on a specific repository', and the scope 'for the last N hours'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (get_standup, get_standup_multi) which focus on user standup summaries, implying this tool is for repository-level activity.

    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 implies usage context: getting recent activity on a repo. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_standup for user-specific activity) or provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

    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

standupbot-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

standupbot-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/rimysore/standupbot-mcp'

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