Skip to main content
Glama
sakupi01

zenn-articles

by sakupi01
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.2.2

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one retrieves a specific example article, the other searches articles by various criteria. There is no overlap.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tools use a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case. However, the use of cryptic abbreviations like 'eg_cy_fe' reduces readability but maintains consistency.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels too thin for its apparent domain of managing articles. Even for a read-only article server, one would expect more retrieval options or related operations.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete. The domain likely involves articles (CRUD, listing), but only a get-example and search are provided. Missing: create, update, delete, list all, get by ID, etc.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 5 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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. It only states a basic action without elaboration.

    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 very concise (one sentence, 10 words) but the phrasing is awkward ('Get A first article'). It is front-loaded but sacrifices clarity for brevity.

    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?

    For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete in stating the basic purpose. However, it fails to explain what 'first article' means or the behavior of the tool, leaving ambiguity.

    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 tool has 0 parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds minimal value by vaguely indicating what the tool returns, but it does not clarify selection criteria like 'first article'. A score of 3 is appropriate as it provides some context but lacks precision.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose3/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description states the verb 'Get' and resource 'article', but the phrasing 'A first article' is ambiguous. It could mean the first article or any example article. It does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'search_cy_fe_articles'.

    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. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. The behavioral impact is unclear beyond the search 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 concise with two short sentences, front-loading the purpose and key behavioral note about OR conditions. No extraneous information.

    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 search tool with 4 parameters (all described) and no output schema, the description covers the search scope and query behavior. It could mention response format or pagination details, but limit/offset are self-explanatory. Nearly 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% with all parameters described. The description repeats the OR condition already stated in the query parameter description, adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 what the tool does ('Search items by title, description, URL, tags, and content') and includes a specific verb ('Search') and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_eg_cy_fe_article', which appears to fetch a single article.

    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, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only implies usage for searching without context.

    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

zenn-articles MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

zenn-articles 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/sakupi01/zenn-articles'

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