ModelAtlas

by rohanvinaik

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.4.3
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose: core recommendation, HF search, detail, comparison, index building, status, generic search, vibe setting, source listing, and enrichment progress. No two tools overlap in function.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with clear prefixes ('hf_' for HuggingFace, 'search_', 'set_', 'list_', 'navigate_'). The naming is predictable and descriptive.
Tool Count5/5
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped. Each tool earns its place, covering discovery, retrieval, comparison, management, and enrichment without unnecessary bloat.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface is complete for the server's purpose: navigating models (core recommendation), searching across sources, fetching details, comparing, building indexes, and adding metadata. No obvious gaps.
Average 4.2/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 3.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 36 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 29, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool computes (intersection, Jaccard, deltas) but does not mention any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or response behavior beyond the listed outputs. The presence of an output schema mitigates some need, but the description lacks operational context.
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 concise, with a clear two-part structure: purpose and a list of outputs. It front-loads the main action. However, the args list duplicates the schema without adding value, slightly reducing efficiency.
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 complexity of comparing multiple models with multiple outputs (intersection, Jaccard, deltas), the description lists these outputs but does not define them or explain when they are useful. The existence of an output schema may fill some gaps, but the description itself is not fully self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter details. It merely restates 'model_ids' as a list of model IDs, adding no constraints, formatting, examples, or semantics beyond the schema. This is insufficient for a tool with a single complex parameter.
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 compares multiple models via anchor set operations and bank positions, listing specific outputs like shared anchors, distinguishing features, Jaccard similarity, and per-bank position deltas. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hf_get_model_detail or hf_search_models.
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 tool's purpose is clear, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description implies comparison use cases but lacks when-not or exclusion criteria.
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 present, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the action (set vibe summary and extra anchors) but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites or appends), required permissions, or failure behavior. The meta instruction about who calls it is not behavioral transparency on the tool's operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively well-structured with a clear opening sentence and bullet points for arguments. However, the paragraph about the LLM being the NLP extraction tier adds context but is not essential for tool invocation, making it slightly less concise than ideal.
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 parameter semantics and usage context adequately. However, it lacks information about return values (though an output schema exists) and error conditions. For a tool with three parameters and simple behavior, the description is mostly complete but could improve with more behavioral details.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the parameter details in the description add significant value. For model_id, it provides a format example; for vibe_summary, it specifies 'one sentence capturing the model's distinctive feel'; for extra_anchors, it gives an example list. This goes beyond the schema's mere type definitions.
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 purpose: 'Set the vibe summary and optional extra anchors for a model.' It also explains when it is used, distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with searching, comparing, or indexing models.
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 explicitly says 'Called by the LLM after reading a model card or understanding a model's characteristics' and advises to 'delegate vibes extraction to the calling model rather than building NLP in Python.' This provides clear context on when to use the tool and when not to implement alternative logic, though it does not directly compare to 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 must fully disclose behavior. It lists the types of statistics shown (models enriched, scores, anchor links, run history) but does not mention data freshness, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. For a zero-parameter tool, more behavioral context would be helpful.
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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every word contributes meaning: the first sentence gives the overall task, the second lists specific outputs. No fluff or redundant statements.
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 zero parameters and an output schema (present), the description is sufficient. It explains what the tool does and the main data it reports. The output schema presumably covers detailed return fields, so the description does not need to enumerate them. It is complete for a simple status tool.
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 zero parameters, so the schema description coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to add parameter semantics. However, it reinforces that no parameters are required, which is consistent.
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 that the tool shows Phase E web enrichment progress and statistics. It specifies the resource (Phase E web enrichment) and the action (show). The description distinguishes this from sibling tools like hf_build_index or hf_compare_models, which are about building or comparing models, not reporting status.
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 indicates a read-only status-check tool, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' statements are included. The context implies usage for checking enrichment progress, but that is not stated directly.
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?
The description details what the tool returns (total models, breakdowns, etc.), implying a read-only operation. Without annotations, it carries the transparency burden well, though it could explicitly state no side effects.
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?
Two sentences with front-loaded purpose and explicit return list. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
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 an output schema, the description adequately explains return values. However, it omits usage context (e.g., when the index is built or valid), which would help 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?
No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), so the description adds no parameter info. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the schema fully defines the interface.
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 purpose ('Show the current state of the semantic network') and lists specific return data (total models, anchor dictionary size, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like hf_build_index or hf_compare_models.
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 on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as phase_e_status or other read tools. Given the sibling context, explicit usage hints would improve selection.
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 full burden. It discloses the full pipeline (fetch, extract, store), the additive behavior, and clarifies that the `force` parameter is unused. This provides good transparency for a mutation tool.
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 front-loaded with the main purpose and pipeline summary. The parameter documentation is structured but slightly verbose. Overall, it efficiently conveys key information without excessive wordiness.
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 complexity (6 params, no output schema details, sibling diversity), the description adequately covers behavior and parameters. It lacks explicit mention of return values, but an output schema exists to provide that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description's docstring explains every parameter in detail, including relationships (e.g., `task` vs `category`), default behaviors, and source-specific constraints (e.g., `min_likes` only for HuggingFace). This adds significant value beyond the schema.
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 purpose: 'Fetch models and add them to the semantic network.' It details the extraction pipeline and distinguishes this from sibling tools focused on searching or retrieving single models.
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 notes the additive nature ('multiple calls enrich the same network'), which indicates usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage boundaries.
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?
The description discloses the three-layer search behavior (network, fuzzy, structured) and the combination approach. Since no annotations exist, it carries the full burden and does so well, though it misses details on rate limits, authentication, or potential side effects.
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 well-structured with bullet points for the three layers and a clear Args list. However, the Args section is somewhat verbose and could be more concise without losing clarity. Overall, it earns its length.
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 complexity (8 params, 1 required) and presence of output schema, the description covers the search mechanism, all parameters, and examples. It lacks details on pagination, error handling, or return structure, but the output schema partly fills that gap. Adequate for most use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description's 'Args' section provides thorough explanations for all 8 parameters, including examples (e.g., 'small code model with tool-calling' for query), defaults, and context for filters like task and author. This fully compensates for the missing schema 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 it searches HuggingFace models using a combination of three distinct layers (navigational semantic network, fuzzy matching, structured HF API filters). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_models or navigate_models, which may use simpler approaches.
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 semantic search but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., simpler search_models). No when-not or alternative tool mentions are included.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns all registered source adapters with availability info, which is sufficient for a simple list operation. No hidden side effects or authorization details are needed for a read-only parameterless 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?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds useful information about the return value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and an existing output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's behavior and output. It covers what the tool does and what it returns, leaving no 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?
There are no parameters, so the description adds no parameter details beyond the schema. Per guidelines, 0 params = baseline 4.
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 'list' and the resource 'model sources', with added detail about returning status. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_models' and 'hf_get_model_detail' which deal with models, not sources.
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 the tool is for checking available sources, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the fallback behavior (HF API if not indexed) and outlines what is returned (bank positions, anchor set, etc.). It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the context of a 'get' tool implies no destructive effects. Slightly above average due to fallback explanation.
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 very concise: two sentences total. The first sentence immediately states the main purpose, and the second adds behavioral details. No redundant or unnecessary words.
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?
With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, but it still includes useful details about what the output contains. It covers the primary behavior and fallback. Lacks mention of side effects (none) or prerequisites, but given the simplicity of a read-only lookup, it is sufficiently 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It provides a concrete example of model_id format, which goes beyond the schema's type definition. This helps the agent understand the expected value format. Adding further constraints like allowed characters or length could push to 5.
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 detailed information' and the resource 'specific model'. It differentiates from siblings like hf_search_models and hf_compare_models by focusing on a single model ID lookup. The additional detail about returning semantic network profile or falling back to HF API further clarifies the purpose.
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 (get details for a specific model by ID) and provides a parameter example. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives among siblings, though the context of sibling tools makes the distinction reasonable. A more explicit exclusion would improve clarity.
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, description discloses use of source adapters, merging for 'all', and filter applicability. It is clear about behavior but could mention pagination or error handling for completeness.
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?
Description is front-loaded with a one-line summary, followed by a brief explanation of adapter behavior, and then a structured args list. Every sentence adds value and there is no wasted text.
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 presence of an output schema, return values need not be explained. The description covers core functionality, parameters, and special case ('all' merges). Could mention prerequisites like indexing, but overall adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description bears full burden. It explains all 5 parameters (query, source, limit, task, author) with details on defaults and source-specific applicability, adding significant meaning beyond the schema.
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 'Search models across sources (huggingface, ollama, or all)' and explains merging behavior for 'all'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hf_search_models which are Hugging Face-specific, giving a specific verb+resource purpose.
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?
Description implies when to use different sources (specific vs all) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use this tool. Sibling differentiation is implied but not explicit, so a score of 4 is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: deterministic scoring with multiplicative factors (bank_alignment * anchor_relevance * ...), score bounds, ranking degradation, tie handling (tie_cluster_id, discriminating_axis), and filter vs. scoring roles of parameters like min_depth and context_anchors. No contradictions with annotations.
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 well-structured with clear sections and hierarchical headings (START HERE, BANK DIRECTIONS, etc.), but it is very long (over 600 words). While every sentence adds value, the length reduces conciseness. A more compact version could convey the same information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's high complexity (18 parameters, refined scoring, refinement loop), the description covers all necessary aspects: input parameter semantics, scoring formula, refinement interaction, and output structure (refine block, tie handling). The presence of an output schema does not detract from the completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates extensively. For each of the 18 parameters, it explains meaning, allowed values (e.g., -1, 0, +1 for bank directions with concrete examples), usage patterns, and interactions (e.g., min_depth requires direction set, context_anchors as bias). It also provides guidance on anchor vocabulary and mode behavior.
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 role as 'The primary recommendation engine' that 'navigate[s] the semantic model network with structured scoring.' It differentiates from sibling search tools by focusing on deterministic scoring and ranking with structured parameters, not simple keyword or text search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit step-by-step usage: 'NARROW, THEN ORDER, SHAPE, REFINE.' It explains when to use require_anchors vs. limit, how to interpret refine flags (scope_unfiltered, ranking_degraded), and details the refinement loop. It also warns against using limit as a brute-force filter and advises using require_anchors instead.
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:

[![ModelAtlas MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rohanvinaik/ModelAtlas/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rohanvinaik/ModelAtlas)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ModelAtlas MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rohanvinaik/ModelAtlas/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rohanvinaik/ModelAtlas)

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/rohanvinaik/ModelAtlas'

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