Skip to main content
Glama
samusilv

Growth Hacker MCP

by samusilv
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript

Server Quality Checklist

50%
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: auditing sales copy, formatting text into threads, and generating viral hooks. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the right tool without confusion.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (audit_copy, format_thread, generate_hooks), using snake_case throughout. This predictability enhances readability and usability.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 3 tools, the set feels thin for a 'Growth Hacker' domain, which typically involves broader tasks like analytics, A/B testing, or campaign management. While the tools are focused, the count may limit comprehensive growth hacking workflows.

    Completeness2/5

    The toolset is severely incomplete for growth hacking, missing core operations such as data analysis, user engagement tracking, or performance optimization. It covers only copy and social media aspects, leaving significant gaps that could hinder agent effectiveness.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 3 of 3 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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool audits and scores copy, but doesn't explain what 'audit' entails (e.g., criteria, metrics), how the score is calculated, or any limitations (e.g., length constraints, language support). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and context, 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?

    For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the audit evaluates, how the score is presented, or any behavioral traits like error handling. Given the complexity of auditing and scoring text, more context is needed to use this tool 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?

    The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'copy' parameter clearly documented as 'The sales copy text.' The description adds no additional semantic details beyond this, such as format examples or content guidelines. Given the high schema coverage, a 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: 'Audit sales copy for Gumroad/Landing pages and give a score.' It specifies the action (audit), resource (sales copy), and context (Gumroad/Landing pages). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'format_thread' or 'generate_hooks', 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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'format_thread' or 'generate_hooks', leaving the agent with minimal context for 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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the basic behavior (splitting text into a thread) but lacks details on constraints like character limits per thread part, handling of formatting or media, error conditions, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool that modifies text output.

    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 that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly communicates what the tool does, making it easy to understand at a glance.

    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 text processing and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the thread format details (e.g., numbering style, length limits), return values, or error handling. This leaves gaps for an AI agent to use the tool 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?

    The input schema has 100% description coverage, with one parameter 'text' documented as 'The full text content.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or formatting requirements. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

    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: 'Split long text into a numbered X (Twitter) thread (1/x).' It specifies the action (split), the resource (long text), and the output format (numbered X thread). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'audit_copy' or 'generate_hooks', which appear unrelated but no explicit distinction is made.

    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 mentions the output format but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without context on sibling tools, users must infer usage based on the purpose alone.

    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 states the tool generates content but doesn't cover aspects like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, output format, or potential side effects (e.g., if it posts to Twitter or just creates drafts). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves AI generation.

    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 that front-loads the core action ('Generate viral hooks') and specifies the context ('for X (Twitter) threads based on a topic'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

    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 content generation, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'viral hooks' entail, the output format (e.g., text list, structured data), or any behavioral traits like error handling. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic 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?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'topic' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the topic is used for hook generation, which doesn't enhance the schema's information. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

    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 ('generate viral hooks') and target resource ('for X (Twitter) threads'), with a specific purpose ('based on a topic'). It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'audit_copy' or 'format_thread', which prevents a perfect score, but the verb+resource combination 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 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 like 'format_thread' or other content generation methods. The description implies usage for creating hooks on Twitter threads but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate scenarios.

    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

growth-hacker-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

growth-hacker-mcp 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/samusilv/growth-hacker-mcp'

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