astrovisor-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v5.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: one for executing API calls, three for exploring OpenAPI specs, one for retrieving results, and one for conventions. No overlapping functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent 'astrovisor_<action>' pattern using snake_case, making them predictable and easy to understand.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of interacting with an API explorer and executor. Neither too few nor too many.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the core workflow: exploring operations, retrieving metadata, executing requests, and fetching results. A minor gap is the lack of a way to list stored results, but this is acceptable given the design.
Average 3.5/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 27, 2026
- 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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'optional selective serialization' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as error handling, required prerequisites, or the effect of serialization parameters. The tool has many complex parameters but the description provides no additional behavioral context beyond the basic operation.
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 (10 words) that conveys the core purpose. While very concise, it earns its place; however, given the tool's complexity, a slightly longer description could be justified. Score 4 for efficient structure.
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?
The description lacks context about the return value (no output schema), the relationship to astrovisor_request (resultId origin), and typical usage scenarios. For a tool with rich serialization options, more guidance on when to use them would improve 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 high (nearly all properties have descriptions). The tool description adds only 'optional selective serialization' which is a general characterization, but does not provide specific semantics for parameters beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 the action (Get), the resource (stored full result), the key identifier (resultId), and the optional feature (selective serialization). This distinguishes it from siblings like astrovisor_request (creates a request) and astrovisor_openapi_* (API schema tools).
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it follows astrovisor_request (since resultId comes from there), but this is not stated. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are provided.
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 provided, so description must carry burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions compact serialization and follow-up retrieval by resultId, but does not explain side effects, authentication requirements, or error behavior. Major gaps for a mutation-capable 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?
Two focused sentences with no fluff. First sentence captures primary purpose; second adds key features. Could benefit from brief usage note but remains efficient.
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 tool complexity (7 parameters, nested response options, no output schema), description is too brief. Does not explain response format, pagination, or how to combine operationId with path/method. Leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.
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 high (86%), so baseline is 3. Description adds context about compact serialization and resultId retrieval, but does not detail parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Adequate but not enhancing.
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 the tool calls any AstroVisor API operation by operationId, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like astrovisor_openapi_search (search) and astrovisor_result_get (retrieval) as the generic gateway.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description implies general-purpose use but does not state preferred alternatives for common operations (e.g., use astrovisor_openapi_get for specific endpoints). Use case is implied but not clarified.
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 disclose behavioral traits. However, it only states the basic action and does not mention read-only nature, error handling, or authentication requirements.
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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous words.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose but lacks details on error handling, return structure, and usage context, making it minimally adequate.
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?
The input schema has one parameter (operationId) with 0% description coverage. The description does not add any extra meaning, format, or example for this parameter, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
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 retrieves OpenAPI metadata for a specific operationId, listing what that metadata includes (method, path, params, requestBody). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like astrovisor_openapi_search or astrovisor_openapi_list.
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 a specific operationId is known, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any when-not-to-use guidance.
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 bear the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get', implying read-only, but offers no details about return format, size, authentication needs, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.
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?
Single sentence, no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the verb and resource. 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 tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description gives a minimal but clear purpose. However, it does not specify what exactly is returned (e.g., format or fields), which could leave an agent uncertain about the output. Adequate for a basic getter but could be more helpful.
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 coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, zero parameters baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter information, but none is needed.
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 retrieves 'MCP interoperability conventions and parameter profiles for LLM clients'. It uses specific verb and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools like astrovisor_request or astrovisor_openapi_search, which serve different purposes.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it should be used to retrieve conventions before making requests, but lacks clear when-not-to-use or alternative names.
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 that the tool performs a listing operation with pagination and optional filters, implying a read-only behavior. This sufficiently communicates the primary behavioral trait, though it does not strictly state that it is idempotent or safe.
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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the primary action and includes key features (pagination, filters). 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?
Given the complexity (5 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not specify the return format (e.g., array of operations, metadata) or ordering. With no output schema, the agent may need additional context about the result structure.
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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds a high-level summary ('pagination and optional filters') but no additional semantic detail beyond what each parameter's description already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 lists OpenAPI operations, with pagination and filters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like astrovisor_openapi_get (single operation) and astrovisor_openapi_search (search). It identifies a specific verb and resource.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus siblings like astrovisor_openapi_search or astrovisor_openapi_get. It lacks context on when to prefer pagination vs search, and no when-not or prerequisites are mentioned.
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, so the description carries full burden. It states it returns top matches but does not disclose pagination, sorting, or behavior for no results. It is adequate but minimal beyond what the schema provides.
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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and scope. No extraneous information.
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?
With no output schema, the description could better indicate the return structure (e.g., list of operations). For a search tool, it is functional but leaves the agent inferring the response format. Adequate but with room for more 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 schema already provides 100% description coverage for parameters. The description adds value by specifying the searchable fields (operationId, summary, path, tag) and clarifying that results are top matches, enhancing understanding 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 searches AstroVisor OpenAPI operations by text across multiple fields (operationId, summary, path, tag) and returns top matches. It distinguishes from sibling tools like astrovisor_openapi_list (list all) and astrovisor_openapi_get (get specific) by focusing on search.
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 searching operations by text, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or provide when-not guidance. It is adequate for basic understanding but lacks explicit context.
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:

[![astrovisor-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rokoss21/astrovisor-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rokoss21/astrovisor-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![astrovisor-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rokoss21/astrovisor-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rokoss21/astrovisor-mcp)

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/rokoss21/astrovisor-mcp'

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