CouchDB MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose targeting specific resources and actions: createDatabase, deleteDatabase, and listDatabases handle database-level operations, while createDocument and getDocument handle document-level operations. There is no overlap or ambiguity between tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., createDatabase, getDocument) using camelCase throughout. The naming is predictable and uniform across all five tools.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, this server is well-scoped for basic CouchDB operations, covering database and document management without being overly sparse or bloated. Each tool serves a clear and necessary function.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers core CRUD operations for databases (create, delete, list) and documents (create, get), but lacks document deletion and update tools, which are common in database workflows. This minor gap might require workarounds but does not severely hinder functionality.
Average 2.9/5 across 5 of 5 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

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 states the tool creates a database but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this requires admin privileges, what happens if the database already exists (e.g., error or overwrite), or any rate limits or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's 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 is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly, though it could benefit from more detail given the lack of annotations.
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 complexity of a database creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, error handling, or what the tool returns upon success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, more completeness is needed to guide an agent effectively.
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 'dbName' documented as 'Database name'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as naming conventions, length restrictions, or character constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context.
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 action ('Create') and resource ('a new CouchDB database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'createDocument' or 'listDatabases', which would require more specificity about what distinguishes database creation from document creation.
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 like 'createDocument' or 'deleteDatabase'. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing admin permissions or checking if a database already exists, nor any explicit exclusions or recommended contexts for usage.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool can both create and update documents, it doesn't specify whether updates are partial or full replacements, what permissions are required, whether operations are idempotent, or what happens on conflicts. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's dual functionality. It's appropriately sized for the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, though it could potentially be more front-loaded with critical behavioral information given the lack of annotations.
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?
For a document creation/update tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens when creating versus updating, what the response looks like, error conditions, or important behavioral constraints. Given the mutation nature and complexity of the operation, more contextual information is needed.
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, so all three parameters (dbName, docId, data) are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, such as format requirements for docId or constraints on data structure. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('create' and 'update') and resource ('document in a database'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'createDatabase' or 'getDocument', which would require more specific differentiation.
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 like 'createDatabase' for creating databases or 'getDocument' for retrieving documents. There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with insufficient context for appropriate tool selection.
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 states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to contained documents, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a destructive tool.
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 zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion (success/failure responses), doesn't warn about irreversible data loss, and doesn't provide context about the CouchDB environment. For a tool that permanently removes resources, this lacks critical completeness.
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% (the single parameter 'dbName' is fully described in the schema as 'Database name to delete'). The description doesn't add any parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 action ('Delete') and target resource ('a CouchDB database'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'createDatabase' or 'listDatabases', but the verb 'Delete' inherently differentiates it from creation and listing operations.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., database must exist), consequences (e.g., irreversible data loss), or relationships to sibling tools like 'createDatabase' for recreation or 'listDatabases' for verification.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a document but lacks details on permissions required, error handling (e.g., if the document doesn't exist), response format, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a read operation in a database context, where such information is crucial for safe usage.
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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information, achieving optimal conciseness.
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 complexity of database operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error cases, return values, or security requirements, which are critical for an agent to use the tool effectively. The description alone is insufficient for safe and informed tool invocation in this context.
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 clear documentation for both parameters ('dbName' and 'docId'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3, which applies here as the description doesn't compensate with extra param details.
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 action ('Get') and resource ('a document from a database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'createDocument' and 'deleteDatabase' by specifying retrieval rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'listDatabases' in terms of scope (single document vs. listing databases), which prevents a perfect score.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing database and document), exclusions (e.g., not for creating or deleting), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'listDatabases' for broader queries. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves - no information about pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or return format. 'List all' implies completeness but doesn't guarantee it.
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 that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the core functionality.
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?
For a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (array of database names? objects with metadata?), potential limitations, or error handling. The agent would need to guess about the return format and behavior.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, earning a baseline score of 4 for tools with no parameters.
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 action ('List') and target resource ('all CouchDB databases'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getDocument' or 'createDatabase' beyond the obvious scope difference, which prevents a perfect score.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparison to sibling tools like 'getDocument' for retrieving specific database information.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![couchdb-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/robertoamoreno/couchdb-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/robertoamoreno/couchdb-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![couchdb-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/robertoamoreno/couchdb-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/robertoamoreno/couchdb-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/robertoamoreno/couchdb-mcp-server'

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