MCP Complete Implementation Guide

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 with no overlap: execute_command runs system commands, fetch_url retrieves web content, get_system_info provides system metadata, list_directory shows directory contents, read_file reads file data, and write_file writes file data. The descriptions make it impossible to confuse one tool for another.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., execute_command, fetch_url, read_file) using snake_case throughout. There are no deviations in naming style or convention across the entire set.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, this is well-scoped for a system utility server. Each tool earns its place by covering distinct, fundamental operations like file I/O, system commands, and network requests, without being overly sparse or bloated.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers core system and file operations comprehensively, including read/write, directory listing, command execution, and URL fetching. A minor gap exists in lacking update/delete file operations, but agents can work around this using existing tools like write_file for overwrites.
Average 2.9/5 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('get'), but does not specify whether it requires permissions, what data it returns, if there are rate limits, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with zero 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 extremely concise with a single three-word phrase, 'Get system information', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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. It does not explain what information is returned, the format, or any behavioral traits, making it insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full context and usage.
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 does not add parameter details, which is appropriate, and it correctly implies no inputs are required, earning a baseline score of 4 for tools with zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get system information' restates the tool name 'get_system_info' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'system information', but lacks detail on what type of system information (e.g., hardware specs, OS details, performance metrics) or scope, failing to distinguish it from potential alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 sibling tools like 'execute_command' or 'fetch_url'. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no information to make an informed choice among available tools.
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 full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention error handling, timeouts, authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'content' includes (e.g., HTML, JSON, binary data). 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, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy 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 complexity of HTTP operations and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., status codes, body content), error cases, or behavioral nuances like redirects or timeouts, which are critical for proper tool usage in this 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (url, method, headers) thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying URL fetching, which is redundant with the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'Fetch content from a URL' clearly states the verb ('fetch') and resource ('content from a URL'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_file' or 'execute_command' which might also retrieve data, so it's not fully distinctive.
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 scenarios like web scraping, API calls, or file downloads, nor does it contrast with siblings like 'read_file' for local files or 'execute_command' for system-level operations.
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 full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation ('List') but doesn't disclose critical traits like error handling (e.g., if path doesn't exist), output format (e.g., list structure, metadata included), or performance considerations (e.g., large directories). This is inadequate 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by directly contributing to understanding the tool's purpose.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., what 'contents' means, error cases) and usage context, which are essential for an agent to invoke this tool correctly in real scenarios. The simplicity of the tool doesn't excuse these gaps.
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 schema already documents the 'path' parameter fully. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the parameter is for directory listing, which the schema's description ('The path to the directory to list') already covers. This meets the baseline for high 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 verb ('List') and resource ('contents of a directory'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_file' (which reads file contents) and 'execute_command' (which runs commands). However, it doesn't specify what 'contents' includes (files, subdirectories, metadata), 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., directory existence, permissions), exclusions (e.g., not for file reading), or comparisons to siblings like 'get_system_info' (which might provide system-level directory info). This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.
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 full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention permissions required, whether it's safe (read-only), potential errors (e.g., file not found), or output format (text, binary). This is inadequate for a tool with mutation siblings.
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 with zero wasted words, front-loading the core action. It earns its place by being maximally concise while still conveying the essential purpose.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and siblings that include mutations ('write_file'), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address safety (read-only vs. destructive), return values, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.
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 schema already documents the 'path' parameter fully. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage (e.g., path formats, relative vs. absolute), meeting the baseline but not compensating beyond what's structured.
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 ('read') and resource ('contents of a file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_directory' or 'fetch_url' which also involve file operations, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 'list_directory' (for browsing) or 'write_file' (for modification). There's no mention of prerequisites, file types supported, or error conditions, leaving the agent with insufficient context for optimal selection.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Write content to a file' implies a destructive mutation but doesn't specify whether this overwrites existing files, creates new ones, or appends. It doesn't mention error conditions, file system permissions needed, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a file system 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?
The description is maximally concise at just four words. Every word earns its place: 'Write' specifies the action, 'content' and 'file' specify what's being manipulated, and 'to' provides necessary grammatical structure. There's zero waste 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?
For a file system mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like whether the operation overwrites or appends, what permissions are required, what happens if the path doesn't exist, or what the tool returns. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool safely and effectively.
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 schema already documents both parameters ('content' and 'path') adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't clarify path format requirements, content encoding, or file type implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('write') and target resource ('content to a file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'read_file' by specifying the opposite operation. However, it doesn't specify what type of writing occurs (overwrite, append, etc.), keeping it from 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 doesn't mention prerequisites like file permissions, when to use 'execute_command' for file operations instead, or how it relates to 'read_file' for file manipulation workflows. The agent must infer usage context entirely from the tool name and parameters.
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 hints at caution but doesn't specify what risks are involved (e.g., destructive effects, permission requirements, or rate limits). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.
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 just one sentence, front-loaded with the core action and a cautionary note. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.
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 complexity (executing system commands can be high-risk), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover return values, error handling, security implications, or detailed behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.
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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the 'command' and 'cwd' parameters. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating with extra semantic value.
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 ('execute') and resource ('system command'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_system_info' or 'list_directory' which might also involve system operations, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.
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 phrase 'use with caution' implies this tool should be used carefully, suggesting it might have risks or side effects. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_system_info' for safe queries, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context somewhat vague.
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 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/saksham0712/MCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/saksham0712/MCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/saksham0712/MCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/saksham0712/MCP)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/saksham0712/MCP'

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