Skip to main content
Glama
rocnubie

82-0 Dream MCP Server

by rocnubie
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

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 serve completely distinct purposes: one returns game scenarios/modes, the other returns official links. There is no overlap or ambiguity in their functions.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'list' and 'get' as the verbs. The naming is clear and predictable.

    Tool Count3/5

    The server has only two tools, which feels thin for a general-purpose server. However, for a very narrow use case of retrieving canonical lists, the count might be acceptable, but it still borders on being too minimal.

    Completeness4/5

    The server covers the two core functions implied by its name: listing scenarios and providing official links. Minor gaps might exist, such as retrieving details for a specific scenario, but the surface seems adequately covered for a simple reference server.

  • 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
    • 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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It indicates a non-mutating operation by using 'Return', but does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or return format. For a simple list tool this is acceptable, but more detail (e.g., read-only guarantee, no parameters) would improve transparency.

    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 clearly states the action. However, the trailing '(82-0 Dream)' is cryptic and adds little value, slightly detracting from clarity and conciseness.

    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 (0 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and the type of content returned. It could mention whether it requires authentication or if the list is static, but for a list tool with no parameters, it is reasonably complete.

    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 (100% coverage by default). The description adds context about the content of the returned list (game modes, scenarios), which is helpful, though not strictly about parameters. Baseline is 4 due to no parameters.

    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 a clear resource ('canonical list of game modes and scenarios'), with concrete examples (free play, daily, leaderboards). This distinguishes it from the sibling get_official_links, which focuses on links rather than scenarios.

    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?

    While the description implies a read-only, authoritative listing, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The sibling tool get_official_links is not mentioned, so guidance is only inferred from the resource type.

    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 provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The term "canonical" conveys authority and the phrase "when available" adds nuance about conditional data. The read-only nature is implied by "Return," and there are no side effects to disclose. It does not mention output format or edge cases, but for a zero-parameter read tool this is adequate.

    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 that states exactly what the tool does. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

    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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource (82-0 Dream) and the link types. It could be slightly more explicit about the return structure (e.g., an array of URL/name pairs), but the simplicity of the tool makes the description sufficient.

    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?

    Zero parameters exist, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema is empty (100% coverage trivially). The description adds no parameter semantics, but there are none to describe.

    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") with a clear resource ("canonical list of official links for 82-0 Dream"), and the parenthetical clarifies the link types. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tool list_scenarios by focusing on links rather than scenarios.

    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 (when you need official links) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_scenarios, nor any exclusions. The context is clear but not explicitly tied to a decision framework.

    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

82-0-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

82-0-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/82-0-mcp'

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