Skip to main content
Glama
salman-khandu

Remote MCP Server on Cloudflare

by salman-khandu
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one handles date calculations and the other provides weather information. There is no overlap in functionality, making it impossible for an agent to confuse them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern (get_current_date and get_current_weather). The structure is uniform and predictable, with no deviations in style or convention.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin and under-scoped for a 'Remote MCP Server on Cloudflare', which implies broader capabilities. The tools are unrelated (date and weather), suggesting a lack of cohesive domain coverage.

    Completeness2/5

    The server's purpose is unclear from the toolset, but the two tools cover unrelated domains (date and weather) without any supporting operations. There are significant gaps, as neither domain has a complete lifecycle (e.g., no date formatting or historical weather), and the overall surface is severely incomplete for any coherent workflow.

  • Average 3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • No commit activity data available
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • 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, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get weather info' but doesn't describe what 'weather info' includes (e.g., temperature, humidity), how it's sourced, any rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word contributes directly to the tool's purpose without 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?

    Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'weather info' entails, how results are returned, or any behavioral traits like reliability or data freshness. For a tool with no structured metadata, the description should provide more context to be fully actionable.

    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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'city' fully documented in the schema (including examples like '北京 上海 广州'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format constraints or edge cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

    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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('weather info'), and specifies the target ('for a given city'). It doesn't distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_current_date', but that's a different domain, so differentiation isn't needed. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

    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 any prerequisites, constraints, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. While the sibling tool is unrelated (date vs. weather), there's no explicit usage context provided.

    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. It describes the core functionality but lacks important behavioral context: no information about timezone handling, date format consistency, error conditions, or what happens with invalid inputs. The description mentions the tool can handle relative units but doesn't specify the complete list or how ambiguous cases are resolved.

    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 appropriately concise with two clear sentences that cover the main functionality. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and follows with the conditional behavior. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit examples.

    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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a date calculation tool. It doesn't specify the return format (string format, timezone), doesn't mention error handling, and doesn't provide the complete list of supported relative units. For a tool that performs date calculations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

    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 single parameter thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing that the parameter accepts both absolute dates and relative units, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema already states.

    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: '获取当前日期' (get current date) with specific functionality for handling relative date units. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_current_weather' by focusing on date retrieval rather than weather data. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling tool in the description text itself.

    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 implies when to use this tool through its functional explanation: when users need current date or date calculations with relative units. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance about when to choose this tool versus alternatives (like the sibling weather tool) or any prerequisites for usage.

    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

mcp-demo MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-demo 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/salman-khandu/mcp-demo'

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