Skip to main content
Glama
rocnubie

Riftrunner AI MCP Server

by rocnubie

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.
  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing models, retrieving pricing, and obtaining official links. No overlap in functionality.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_models, get_pricing, get_official_links), making them predictable and easy to understand.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 3 tools, the server is focused and well-scoped, covering the essential informational needs for the Riftrunner AI platform without unnecessary clutter.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set covers the stated purpose of providing canonical information (models, pricing, links). However, it lacks tools for direct AI interaction or usage, which might be expected given the server's name.

  • Average 4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 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, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or any rate limits or auth requirements, leaving significant 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 sentence that is clear and front-loaded, but includes an unnecessary parenthetical 'Riftrunner AI' that adds no value. It is concise but could be more streamlined.

    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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately states the return value (list with capability notes). It is complete enough given the tool's low complexity.

    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 100% schema description coverage, so the description need not add parameter details. The baseline of 4 is appropriate as no additional semantics are required.

    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 a canonical list of chat models with capability notes. The verb 'Return' and resource 'list of chat models' are specific, and the tool is easily distinguished from siblings get_pricing and get_official_links.

    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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It only states the basic function, leaving usage context implied rather than stated.

    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?

    No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns data, but does not mention any behavioral traits (e.g., cost, rate limits, or idempotency). For a simple getter, the lack of negative side effects 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.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single sentence of 8 words, containing only essential information. No redundancy or fluff.

    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 defines the tool's purpose minimally. Without an output schema, the agent does not know the structure of the returned pricing entry point. Given the simple nature (0 params), it is adequate but could clarify what 'canonical pricing entry point' means.

    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, so schema coverage is 100% and the description adds no parameter-level detail. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not contradict or add confusion.

    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 identifies the resource ('canonical pricing entry point for Riftrunner AI'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_models and get_official_links, which cover different domains.

    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 implies usage when pricing information is needed, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. However, given the tool's simplicity and lack of alternatives for pricing, it is clear enough.

    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?

    No annotations are provided. The description mentions it returns a list of links but does not disclose behavioral details like update frequency, caching, or error handling. For a simple tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

    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?

    One sentence that is front-loaded with the action 'Return' and includes all necessary detail without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

    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 no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to know what the tool does. However, it could hint at the format or stability of the links.

    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 no parameters, and the input schema covers 100% of parameter definitions. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable as baseline for zero 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 clearly states it returns the canonical list of official links for Riftrunner AI, covering website, support, and docs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (list_models, get_pricing) by its specific focus on links.

    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 implies when to use (when official links are needed). While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, the tool has zero parameters, making its usage straightforward.

    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

riftrunner-ai-online-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

riftrunner-ai-online-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/riftrunner-ai-online-mcp'

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