MCP Apps Starter Kit

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct domains (budget, comparison, trip, workout), but render_comparison and render_decision_matrix both compare options, and render_trip_explorer is also comparison-like. The detailed descriptions help clarify, but slight overlap exists.
Naming Consistency5/5
All render tools follow the consistent verb_noun pattern (render_budget, render_trip, etc.), and the log tools use save_workout_log/get_workout_log. Naming is uniform, snake_case, and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the count is well within the ideal range. Each tool appears purposeful, and there is no redundancy or bloat. The broad scope fits a 'starter kit' concept.
Completeness2/5
The set is a mix of render-only tools with no persistence except for workout logs (save/get). There are no update/delete operations for workout logs, and no data management for budget, comparisons, or trips. The domain is unclear, and lifecycle coverage is inconsistent.
Average 4/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 3.4/5.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states a save operation but doesn't disclose whether it overwrites existing entries, appends, or returns a success indicator, nor any prerequisites like an existing log file. This is minimal 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, nine words, front-loaded verb-object structure. No fluff, and the core action is immediately clear.
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 tool has 5 parameters (4 required) and no output schema, yet the description is only one sentence. No mention of return values, error handling, or the expected JSON structure for the exercises parameter, leaving the agent under-informed for a write operation.
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?
All 5 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents each field adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('save') and resource ('completed workout session' to 'log file'), clearly distinguishing it from read-only siblings like get_workout_log and render_* tools. The purpose is unambiguous.
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 or alternatives is provided. The intent is implied by the name and description, but it doesn't mention that get_workout_log is for reading or that render_workout is for display, so the agent must infer usage context.
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 the full burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, and 'from the log file' suggests no mutation, but the description does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, permission requirements, or return format details. It is not misleading but is sparse.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence, 'Retrieve workout history from the log file', is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No wordy filler.
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 this is a simple no-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides the core purpose but lacks specifics about the return shape or whether it returns all history or a filtered subset. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps that could matter for the agent.
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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not claim any parameter-specific behavior. It adds no parameter semantics but none are needed.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Retrieve' and identifies the resource 'workout history from the log file'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like save_workout_log (write) and render_workout (visualization), though it does not explicitly name alternatives. Clear but no explicit sibling differentiation.
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?
Description implies the tool is used to access workout history but provides no conditions, exclusions, or comparison to alternatives. It does not state when to choose this over render_workout or save_workout_log. Usage is implied rather than explicit.
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 says 'render' without explaining side effects, rendering output format, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.
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 exceptionally concise with two short sentences, front-loading the purpose and then giving an essential usage instruction. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with comprehensive schema descriptions, the description provides adequate context for selection and invocation. However, the absence of an output schema and lack of behavioral details about the rendered output means it is not fully complete for an agent that needs to know what to expect after 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?
The input schema fully documents both parameters, including a detailed example for 'options' and a description for 'title'. The tool description only repeats the instruction to pass options as a JSON array, adding no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 renders a side-by-side comparison of products/options, specifying key elements like pros, cons, ratings, and prices. This distinguishes it from sibling render tools such as render_budget or render_trip, which focus on different content types.
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 the tool is used when a comparative view of options is needed, and provides explicit input instructions (pass options as a JSON array). However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like render_decision_matrix, so it lacks explicit exclusionary guidance.
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 present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's rendering behavior with heatmap coloring and best-pick recommendation, but omits details like output format, handling of invalid JSON, or weight normalization. This is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences and 24 words, front-loaded with the main verb and object. It mentions only essential details (input format, output features) with no filler, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured.
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 render tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a clear picture of what the tool does and what input to provide. It lacks return-value specifics and deeper weight semantics, but the simple schema and focused purpose make it adequately complete.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'Pass options and criteria as JSON arrays,' which reinforces but does not extend the schema. It does not clarify semantic constraints like score ranges or weight sum requirements, adding minimal 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 uses a specific verb 'Render' and resource 'weighted decision matrix' with explicit output features (scores, heatmap coloring, best-pick recommendation). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like render_budget and render_comparison by focusing on weighted multi-criteria comparisons.
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 a clear use case: comparing options across weighted criteria to produce a decision matrix. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references, but the context is unambiguous and self-contained, earning a 4 for clear implied usage.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details rendering features and required fields (video_url, estimated_calories, etc.), but it does not explicitly state whether the tool has side effects (e.g., if progress tracking/history involves saving data) or whether it is read-only. This leaves some ambiguity, but the description adds value beyond the tool name.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It efficiently covers features, input format, and critical requirements without redundancy or fluff.
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 no output schema, the description compensates by describing the output behavior (interactive, dark theme, expandable cards). It thoroughly covers input structure and required fields. However, it lacks details on error handling, edge cases, or specifics of progress tracking/history features, making it slightly incomplete for a tool with this many features.
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 schema already provides 100% coverage of all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the importance of certain fields (video_url, estimated_calories, duration_minutes, tips) but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. It does highlight a validation requirement, but that's not new parameter semantics.
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 a specific verb ('Render') and resource ('interactive workout plan') with detailed features (dark theme, summary metrics, expandable cards, progress tracking). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling render_* tools like render_budget or render_comparison, which target different domains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides explicit input instructions: 'Pass plan as a JSON array of week objects.' This gives clear context on usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like save_workout_log or get_workout_log, nor does it state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.
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 conveys that this tool renders visuals, implying a non-destructive, read-only operation. It does not explicitly state side effects or prerequisites, but the verb 'Render' is sufficiently clear for an agent. It does not contradict annotations (none exist).
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, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every word earns its place, no redundancy or padding.
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 it's a render tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and key input format. It lacks explicit error handling or return value details, but for a visualization tool this is adequate.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of categories as a JSON array repeats the schema's example, adding no new semantic value. It does not clarify title or total_budget beyond what the schema already states.
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 identifies the tool as a renderer for budget breakdowns, specifying pie chart, bar chart, and surplus/deficit indicator. This distinguishes it from sibling render tools like render_comparison or render_trip, which serve different domains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context is clear: use this when you need to visualize a budget. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the budget-specific nature is obvious from the description. Lacks explicit '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.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses interactive user behaviors (swap, remove, comment, send preferences) and a currency consistency rule. It does not explicitly mention that this is a render-only operation, but the 'Render' verb plus interactive context sufficiently conveys behavior.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence adds distinct information. No fluff or redundant content.
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?
It covers the main purpose, input format, interactive modifications, and a contextual nuance (currency match). While it doesn't explicitly explain the trip_days/destination parameters, the schema already does. For a rendering tool without an output schema, this is sufficiently complete.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by advising to use the same currency as the trip explorer, which supplements the 'currency' parameter. However, it largely restates the itinerary structure already described in 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Render a day-by-day trip itinerary' with details on content (time slots, locations, costs, budget tracker). It distinguishes itself from sibling render tools by highlighting interactive features like swapping/removing/comments and sending style preferences back to Claude.
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?
It gives clear context: pass itinerary as a JSON array, and use the same currency as the trip explorer if applicable. It does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, but the description's specificity about itinerary rendering implies its primary use case.
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 behavioral disclosure. It explains the interactive nature (user can select up to 2 destinations), the required structure of each destination (3-5 options, specific fields), and the fact that it's a preliminary step before a detailed itinerary. It does not mention edge cases or return behavior, but for a render/UI tool this is substantial 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 somewhat long but well structured: it leads with the main purpose, then details required fields and structure, then explains user interaction, and ends with usage guidance. Each sentence contributes meaningful information, though the destination field enumeration could be condensed by pointing to the schema example.
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 tool with 6 parameters, a nested object structure (destinations), and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the overall purpose, when to use, the expected input structure, and the interactive behavior. It doesn't explain how the 'budget' parameter influences the view or what happens if insufficient data is provided, which are minor gaps given the schema descriptions.
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 describes all 6 parameters with good coverage (100%). The description adds value by specifying that each destination must include a particular set of fields, that there should be 3-5 options, and that the user can select up to 2 for comparison. This goes beyond the schema's generic JSON array description and clarifies expected content and constraints.
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 renders an interactive destination comparison view, using the specific verb 'render' and resource 'destination comparison view'. It distinguishes itself from sibling render_trip by explicitly saying to use this tool first for trip planning before committing to a detailed itinerary, and names render_trip as the follow-up.
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 usage guidance: 'Use this tool FIRST when a user asks about vacation/trip planning' and explicitly names the alternative (render_trip) that should be used later for detailed itineraries. This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool versus siblings.
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:

[![mcp-apps-starter-kit MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rushildharhakim/mcp-apps-starter-kit/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rushildharhakim/mcp-apps-starter-kit)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-apps-starter-kit MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rushildharhakim/mcp-apps-starter-kit/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rushildharhakim/mcp-apps-starter-kit)

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/rushildharhakim/mcp-apps-starter-kit'

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