Rossum MCP Server

Official

by rossumai

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting different Rossum resources: hooks, queues, schemas, and workspaces. The singular vs. plural naming (e.g., get_hook vs. get_hooks) further clarifies whether the tool retrieves a specific item or all items, eliminating any ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent 'rossum_get_' prefix with snake_case, followed by the resource name (e.g., hook, hooks, queues, schema, workspace, workspaces). This predictable pattern makes it easy to understand what each tool does at a glance.
Tool Count4/5
With 6 tools, the count is reasonable for a Rossum API server, covering key resources like hooks, queues, schemas, and workspaces. It's slightly lean but functional; adding a few more tools (e.g., for creating or updating resources) could enhance completeness without being excessive.
Completeness2/5
The toolset is severely incomplete as it only provides read operations (get) for resources. There are no tools for creating, updating, or deleting hooks, queues, schemas, or workspaces, which are essential for full CRUD coverage in a document processing platform like Rossum. This will cause significant agent failures when trying to modify data.
Average 3.2/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'retrieves' a schema, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'retrieve' entails (e.g., returns JSON, includes metadata). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. The 'Args' section is structured but could be more integrated; overall, it's efficient with little waste, though minor improvements in flow are possible.
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 the complexity (simple retrieval), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'schema' entails in this context, the return format, or error cases, making it inadequate for reliable agent use without additional context.
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?
The description adds minimal semantics: it clarifies that 'schema_id' is 'The ID of the schema to retrieve'. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, this provides some value beyond the bare schema, but it's basic and doesn't detail format (e.g., numeric, string pattern) or constraints. Baseline is 3 as it compensates slightly for low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'a specific schema by its ID', making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'rossum_get_workspace' or 'rossum_get_queues' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid schema ID, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'rossum_get_workspaces' for listing schemas, leaving usage unclear.
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 carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves a workspace, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the 'Args' section efficiently documents the parameter. There is no wasted text, and every sentence adds value by either explaining the tool or its parameters.
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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on authentication, error handling, response structure, and usage relative to siblings. While concise, it doesn't provide enough information for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without additional assumptions.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that 'workspace_id' is 'The ID of the workspace to retrieve,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's title ('Workspace Id'). However, it doesn't provide details like format, constraints, or examples, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a specific workspace by its ID.' This specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('workspace'), and distinguishes it from the sibling 'rossum_get_workspaces' (which retrieves multiple workspaces). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'workspace' means in this context or differentiate from other sibling tools like 'rossum_get_queues' beyond the resource type.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'rossum_get_workspace' instead of 'rossum_get_workspaces' (e.g., when you know the specific ID), nor does it reference other sibling tools like 'rossum_get_queues' for related resources. Usage is implied by the parameter requirement but not explicitly stated.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't address critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'all queues' entails (e.g., format, filtering). This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.
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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any fluff or redundant details. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what 'queues' are in this context, the return format, potential limitations (e.g., large result sets), or error conditions. For a tool with zero structured metadata, more behavioral and output details are needed.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, avoiding redundancy. A baseline of 4 is applied since it doesn't add unnecessary information beyond the schema's completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('all queues from the Rossum organization'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'rossum_get_workspaces' or 'rossum_get_hooks' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rossum_get_workspace' or 'rossum_get_hooks'. It lacks context about prerequisites, organizational scope, or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it retrieves 'all' hooks, implying a list operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying what is being retrieved and from where.
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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format or error conditions. For a basic read operation, it meets minimum viability but could be more informative about the return value or usage context.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied for tools with zero parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for and the description doesn't introduce confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get all') and resource ('serverless function hooks from the Rossum organization'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'rossum_get_hook' (singular vs plural), but the scope is clear. The description avoids tautology by specifying what is being retrieved rather than just restating the name.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'rossum_get_hook' (for a single hook) or other get operations, nor does it specify any prerequisites or contextual constraints. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without mentioning any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or what 'Get all' entails (e.g., if it returns a list or summary). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It doesn't explain what 'workspaces' are in this context or what the output might look like (e.g., a list of objects), which could help an agent use it correctly. However, for a basic read operation, it meets the bare minimum.
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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't incorrectly mention any. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool with complete schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('all workspaces from the Rossum organization'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'rossum_get_workspace' (singular vs. plural), which would be needed for a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rossum_get_workspace' or other sibling tools. It simply states what it does without context about appropriate scenarios or exclusions.
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), which is clear, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the hook ID doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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 perfectly concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a brief 'Args' section that explains the single parameter. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the information is front-loaded for quick understanding.
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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete for basic usage. It explains what the tool does and the parameter, but lacks details about behavioral aspects and doesn't describe the return value (e.g., what fields the hook object includes beyond source code). For a tool with no output schema, more information about the response would be beneficial.
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?
The description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining that 'hook_id' is 'The ID of the hook to retrieve', which clarifies the parameter's purpose. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, the description compensates adequately but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or constraints. The baseline is appropriate given the simple parameter structure.
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 specific action ('Get a specific serverless function hook'), identifies the resource ('by its ID'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying it retrieves a single hook (vs. rossum_get_hooks which likely lists multiple). The inclusion of 'including its source code' adds valuable detail about what information is returned.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('by its ID'), implying it's for retrieving a known specific hook rather than listing all hooks. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like rossum_get_hooks for listing hooks, which would be helpful for full differentiation.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/rossumai/rossum-mcp-server'

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