deepwork

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: starting a task, inspecting, planning, verifying, checking status, and final gating. No overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., inspect_repository, record_plan).
Tool Count5/5
6 tools is appropriate for a focused workflow covering task initiation, inspection, planning, verification, and status reporting.
Completeness4/5
The set covers the main workflow stages but lacks a tool for applying changes or modifying the repository, which may be outside scope.
Average 3.4/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 14 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provide readOnlyHint, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond 'persist', such as idempotency, side effects, or authorization requirements. The description carries the burden but adds little.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure and depth. It could be expanded without becoming verbose to cover essential details.
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 5 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It omits return behavior, parameter semantics, and important sequencing details beyond the one sentence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of any parameter's purpose or constraints. The agent must rely solely on the parameter names and properties.
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: persisting a concrete plan after inspection and before writes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like inspect_repository or task_begin, so the distinction is implied rather than stated.
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 provides a clear when-to-use context ('after inspection and before any write'), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use the tool or alternatives. The agent must infer from sibling names.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's mention of 'append-only' aligns but does not add new behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.
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?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb. Efficient but omits essential parameter explanation, slightly reducing effectiveness.
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?
Missing description of the return value structure and parameter details. Annotations cover safety, but for a read operation with no output schema, the description should explain the output format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not document the `taskId` parameter at all, leaving the agent without guidance on valid values, format, or constraints despite the schema having a pattern.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns the 'append-only evidence state' and 'current quality-gate stage' for a task, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like final_gate by describing the precise components returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like final_gate or inspect_repository. No indications of preconditions or when not to use it.
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?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by specifying the exact methods (ripgrep, Git, manifests, symlink/junction scan), which helps the agent understand the operational scope beyond what annotations convey.
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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the core action. It uses no filler, but could arguably be more streamlined. Still, it is efficient for its length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains what the tool does and how it works, but lacks parameter guidance and does not describe the output. Given the simple schema and annotations, it is minimally adequate but leaves the agent uncertain about parameter semantics and return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention or explain any parameters. With two parameters (taskId and workspaceRoot), the description fails to add meaning or usage context, leaving the agent to infer their purpose from names and constraints alone.
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 creates a deterministic inventory and lists the methods used (ripgrep, Git, manifests, symlink/junction scan). While it lacks specificity about what 'inventory' entails, it adequately defines the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from unrelated sibling 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it complements other tools like final_gate or record_plan.
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?
Annotations already indicate non-destructive and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds that it records specific items, providing context beyond annotations. No contradictions, but does not elaborate on validation or side effects—acceptable given 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?
One short sentence (12 words) that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning; no padding or redundancy.
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?
With 9 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description fails to explain many parameters (e.g., taskId, nonGoals) that are critical for correct usage. The tool's context (task initialization) is conveyed, but parameter completeness is lacking.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It only explains objective, acceptanceCriteria, and workspaceRoot, leaving 6 of 9 parameters (taskId, nonGoals, assumptions, constraints, allowedPaths, protectedPaths) unexplained. Insufficient for agents to understand required inputs like taskId.
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 records objective, acceptance criteria, and workspace before repository work begins, using a specific verb ('record') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'final_gate' (end-of-task) and 'inspect_repository' (different action).
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 specifies 'before repository work begins,' indicating when to use. While no explicit when-not or alternatives are given, the sibling context implies this is the initial step, and 'final_gate' is the counterpart. Missing explicit exclusions or alternatives, but still clear.
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?
Annotations indicate a mutating, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds the key behavior that the tool will refuse unless conditions are satisfied, but does not clarify what 'refuse' means (e.g., error, boolean, side effects) or specify any additional behaviors like logging or state changes.
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 sentence that immediately conveys the core logic and prerequisites. 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.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is sufficient for a simple gate check given the sibling context, but lacks details on return value, side effects, or error handling. For a tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, more completeness would be helpful (e.g., what 'PASS' means, whether it updates task status).
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially by naming 'diff summary' and 'acceptance-evidence items', which correspond to the diffSummary and acceptanceEvidence parameters. However, it does not explain taskId or provide any format or usage guidance beyond the schema 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 uses a specific conditional verb 'Refuse PASS unless...' which clearly identifies the tool as a quality gate enforcer. It lists distinct prerequisites (inspection, plan, post-change verification, diff summary, acceptance evidence) that distinguish it from sibling tools like inspect_repository or run_verification.
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 should be used after all prerequisites are met, but does not explicitly state when to avoid it or name alternatives. The condition is clear, but ordering guidance is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond annotations by detailing fingerprinting behavior, potential for spawning processes, network access, and destructive file mutations. It clearly states that detected mutations cause verification failure, adding significant behavioral context not covered by annotations.
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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and security context; the second covers the alternative. No redundant or unnecessary 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?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive, open-world), annotations, and lack of output schema, the description covers the core concept and security implications but lacks detail on remaining parameters and return behavior. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand usage without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only partially. It implies the 'command' parameter for the action and 'noTestsEvidence' for the alternative, but does not explain 'taskId' or 'timeoutMs', nor their constraints. The meaning added is minimal and incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it executes a planned test/lint/check/build command, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on execution and includes an alternative action for no-test evidence.
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 (for running verification commands from an untrusted repository) and mentions an alternative within the tool (recording no-test evidence). However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like inspect_repository or final_gate, so usage guidance is good but not exhaustive.
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:

[![windsurf-deepwork MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/saisharan0103/windsurf-deepwork/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/saisharan0103/windsurf-deepwork)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![windsurf-deepwork MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/saisharan0103/windsurf-deepwork/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/saisharan0103/windsurf-deepwork)

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/saisharan0103/windsurf-deepwork'

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