Skip to main content
Glama
shellsage-ai

MCP Server Boilerplate

by shellsage-ai
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript

Server Quality Checklist

83%
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 echoes messages, the other returns timestamps. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names are single-word lowercase verbs ('echo', 'timestamp'), following a consistent and predictable pattern.

    Tool Count4/5

    With only 2 tools, the set is minimal, but as a boilerplate or template, each tool serves a clear and essential purpose. It is slightly under the typical range but reasonable for its intended use.

    Completeness5/5

    For a boilerplate server, the tool surface is complete: it provides basic demonstration functions (echo and timestamp) with no missing operations.

  • Average 4.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • 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.

  • This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.

  • 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.

  • View related servers

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation returning a timestamp, but lacks details on format (e.g., seconds vs. milliseconds) or any potential edge cases, though the simplicity of the tool makes this minor.

    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, front-loaded sentence with zero extraneous words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose for a parameterless tool.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness5/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no complex behavior), the description fully suffices. It answers the fundamental question of what the tool does without omission.

    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?

    No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% by default, and the description adds no parameter information because none is needed.

    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 precisely states the tool's function: 'Get the current UTC timestamp'. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('current UTC timestamp'), clearly distinguishing it from the unrelated sibling 'echo'.

    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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites. It implies usage for obtaining the current timestamp, but no explicit context or exclusions are given.

    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?

    No annotations are provided, but the description fully captures the tool's behavior: it returns the input message. No hidden side effects or complexities exist for this trivial 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 a single, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the main action. No unnecessary information is included.

    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?

    The tool is very simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description adequately communicates the behavior, though it does not explicitly mention the return format, which is obvious.

    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 provides 100% coverage with a description for the single parameter 'message'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.

    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 action ('Echo') and the resource ('a message back to the caller'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'timestamp' by being a simple pass-through operation.

    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?

    While no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use is given, the tool's simplicity and contrast with 'timestamp' make usage context clear. It is implied for testing or verification purposes.

    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-server-boilerplate MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-server-boilerplate 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/shellsage-ai/mcp-server-boilerplate'

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