Skip to main content
Glama
rocnubie

20-0 MCP Server

by rocnubie
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have completely distinct purposes: list_scenarios returns game modes/scenarios, while get_official_links returns official links. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names follow the same verb_noun pattern in snake_case ('list_scenarios', 'get_official_links'). The naming is fully consistent with a clear and predictable style.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin but is acceptable for its narrow scope of providing two reference lists. It falls in the borderline category but doesn't detract from the server's purpose.

    Completeness5/5

    For its stated purpose of exposing canonical game scenarios and official links, the two tools cover the domain completely. There are no obvious missing operations within this narrow scope.

  • Average 3.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • No commit activity data available
    • 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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'canonical' and 'when available', implying some conditional handling, but it does not describe side effects, prerequisites, error behavior, or whether it is a safe read operation. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safeguards.

    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 filler. It efficiently conveys the core functionality and the useful qualifier 'when available' without unnecessary verbosity. Every word earns its place.

    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 states what is returned (official links for 20-0) and hints at contents (website, support, docs), but lacks an output schema or return format details. For a simple, param-less tool, this is minimally adequate, but richer description of the return structure or use cases would improve completeness.

    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 the schema is empty, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed. The baseline holds because there is no parameter semantic gap to address.

    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's action ('Return') and resource ('the canonical list of official links for 20-0'), specifying what is returned. It distinguishes from the sibling 'list_scenarios' by focusing on official links rather than scenarios, making its purpose unambiguous.

    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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the sibling tool 'list_scenarios' or any conditions for choosing one over the other. There is no implied context beyond the bare statement of functionality.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly indicates a read-only retrieval action ('Return') and calls the result 'canonical', signaling an authoritative, non-mutating operation. It does not mention error handling or response details, but these are not critical for a simple list retrieval.

    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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and examples. However, the trailing '(20-0)' is unexplained and adds no value, slightly detracting from an otherwise concise structure.

    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?

    For a simple, parameterless list tool, the description is complete enough: it states the return type (list), the subject (game modes/scenarios), and gives representative examples. The lack of an output schema is acceptable because the return value is self-evident, though the odd '(20-0)' token introduces minor ambiguity.

    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, so the schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds useful context about the contents of the returned list (free play, daily, leaderboards), which is sufficient given there is nothing to document at the parameter level.

    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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource ('canonical list of game modes and scenarios'), with examples of contents. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_official_links', which focuses on links rather than canonical game modes.

    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 its use by stating it returns the canonical list of game modes, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention the sibling tool. There is no exclusionary guidance, so the usage context is only implied.

    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

20-0-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

20-0-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/rocnubie/20-0-mcp'

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