Skip to main content
Glama
rostradamus

klaws

by rostradamus
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Go
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.6

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a distinct purpose: get_law_reference looks up laws by ID, list_detectors lists available detectors, scan_directory scans entire directories, and scan_file scans single files. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: get_law_reference, list_detectors, scan_directory, scan_file. The naming is predictable and uniform.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 4 tools, the set is concise yet complete for its domain. It covers the necessary operations: listing detectors, scanning, and law reference lookup. No excess or deficiency.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool surface covers the full workflow: discover detectors (list_detectors), scan files (scan_directory/scan_file), and retrieve legal references (get_law_reference). There are no obvious gaps for the intended use case.

  • Average 4.1/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 19 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • 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

  • Behavior1/5

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

    Description implies a safe read operation, but annotation destructiveHint: true contradicts this. The description does not disclose any destructive behavior, and the conflict undermines transparency. Score 1 due to contradiction.

    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 no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage hint and disclaimer. Every sentence 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?

    Without output schema, description adequately lists return fields (names, summary, URL, risk level, full text when available). Mentions typical use case. Could briefly note network requirements for live=true, but overall complete.

    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 coverage is 100%, but description adds valuable examples for law_id and explains live parameter behavior (fetch latest vs. bundled). Provides additional context beyond 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?

    Clearly states the tool looks up a bundled Korean law provision by ID and returns specific fields. Also mentions typical use case of expanding a related_laws ID from a scan. No need to differentiate from siblings as they are unrelated.

    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?

    Describes typical usage: 'expand a related_laws ID returned by a scan.' Also clarifies it's reference material, not legal advice. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but sufficient given narrow scope.

    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?

    Description does not address the contradiction in annotations: readOnlyHint true but destructiveHint true. The description implies a read-only scan, but annotations suggest possible destructiveness. No explanation provided.

    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, front-loaded with purpose and usage, no redundancy. 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?

    Covers purpose, usage, and output shape (same as scan_directory). Missing discussion of permissions or error handling, but adequate for a simple tool. Slightly incomplete due to not addressing annotation contradiction.

    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 already fully describes the path parameter with 100% coverage. Description adds only an example path, not substantial new meaning beyond 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?

    Clearly states it scans a single file for Korean compliance risks and returns JSON report. Distinguishes from sibling scan_directory by specifying single file vs whole project.

    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?

    Explicitly says use this for checking one file (e.g., current editor) and scan_directory for whole project. Also notes findings are not legal conclusions.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior1/5

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

    The description presents a read-only scanning operation, but annotations include destructiveHint=true, creating a contradiction. The description does not address or explain this destructive annotation, which could mislead an agent.

    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 concise (5 sentences) with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, output format, clarification of findings, usage guidelines, and sibling reference. No wasted words.

    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?

    For a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides comprehensive context: purpose, return structure, legal caveats, related tool (get_law_reference), and usage guidance. Covers all necessary aspects.

    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 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds context: default pattern '*.java', examples, and mentions detectors target Java/Kotlin-style source, 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's function: scanning a directory tree for Korean compliance risks across specific acts. It specifies the output format and distinguishes from sibling tool scan_file for single files.

    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?

    Explicitly tells when to use this tool ('for a whole project or folder') and when to use the alternative ('use scan_file for a single file'). No ambiguity.

    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?

    Description accurately portrays a read-only list operation, but annotations contain destructiveHint=true which contradicts this. The description does not address the contradiction or provide additional behavioral context.

    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, front-loaded with the action and results. No extraneous 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?

    Completely describes what the tool returns and its use case. No output schema needed for such a simple list.

    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 in schema; description confirms 'Takes no arguments.' This is sufficient given 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage.

    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 all compliance risk detectors with specific fields (id, name, description, related_laws). It is distinct from sibling tools like scan_directory and get_law_reference.

    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?

    Explicitly says use it to explain what klaws checks for or to see risks before scanning. No explicit exclusion of alternatives, but implied differentiation from sibling tools.

    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

klaws MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

klaws 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/rostradamus/klaws'

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