MCPet

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity: create_pet initializes a new pet, while check_pet monitors status, and feed_pet, clean_pet, play_with_pet, and put_to_bed each handle specific care actions. The descriptions reinforce unique functions, making misselection unlikely.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case, such as check_pet, feed_pet, and play_with_pet. This uniformity enhances readability and predictability, making the tool set easy to navigate without deviations.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the count is well-scoped for a virtual pet management domain, covering core actions like creation, status checks, and care activities. Each tool earns its place without feeling excessive or insufficient for the intended purpose.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides strong coverage for basic pet care, including creation, feeding, cleaning, playing, and sleep management. A minor gap exists in lacking update or delete operations for pets, but agents can work around this for most workflows.
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 is failing
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. 'Feed your virtual pet' implies a mutation (feeding changes pet state), but it doesn't specify what effects occur (e.g., increases energy, affects mood), whether it's idempotent, or any side effects like cooldowns. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented, making it inadequate for a mutation 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single sentence 'Feed your virtual pet', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it's overly brief, bordering on under-specification, as it lacks necessary details for a mutation tool. While efficient, it could benefit from slightly more context without sacrificing brevity.
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 as a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what feeding does (e.g., returns pet status or success message), potential errors, or behavioral nuances. For a tool that likely changes state, this leaves too many gaps, making it inadequate for effective use without additional inference.
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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% coverage with a clear description and enum for the 'food' parameter, detailing types like 'snack', 'meal', or 'feast'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate or add extra meaning, but it also doesn't contradict the schema.
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 'Feed your virtual pet' clearly states the action (feed) and target (virtual pet), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'play_with_pet' or 'put_to_bed' beyond the obvious action difference, nor does it specify what feeding accomplishes (e.g., increases happiness or health). This makes it vague in context, as it lacks sibling differentiation and specific outcomes.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., pet must be awake or hungry), exclusions (e.g., don't use if pet is full), or comparisons to siblings like 'check_pet' for status monitoring. Without such context, users must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for informed 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Play') but doesn't describe effects (e.g., how it affects pet happiness, energy levels, or other states), side effects, or constraints (e.g., cooldowns, limitations based on pet type). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely modifies pet state.
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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to conveying 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 the complexity of a pet interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after playing (e.g., changes to pet attributes, possible errors, or return values), leaving the agent without crucial context for effective use. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves state changes.
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 'activity' parameter with an enum and description. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the impact of different activity choices. Since schema coverage is high, 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Play with your virtual pet' states a clear action ('Play') and target ('virtual pet'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'play' entails compared to other pet interactions. It distinguishes from siblings like 'feed_pet' or 'clean_pet' by focusing on play, but doesn't specify how it differs from other interactive tools beyond the general concept.
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 (e.g., if the pet must be awake or healthy), exclusions (e.g., not to use if the pet is sleeping), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'check_pet' for status monitoring. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly defined.
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 states the tool checks status but doesn't reveal whether this is a read-only operation, has side effects, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The description is minimal and misses key behavioral context needed for safe invocation.
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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. No wasted words or redundant information.
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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what status information is returned, format of response, or error conditions. For a status-checking tool in a pet management system, users need to know what metrics are available (health, hunger, etc.) to use it effectively.
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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. Baseline score of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools when the description doesn't attempt to explain non-existent parameters.
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 tool's purpose as checking a virtual pet's status, which is clear but vague about what specific status information is retrieved. It distinguishes from siblings like feed_pet or play_with_pet by focusing on status checking rather than interaction, but doesn't specify what aspects of status are included (e.g., health, happiness, energy).
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 (e.g., whether a pet must exist), frequency recommendations, or relationship to other tools like create_pet (for initialization) or clean_pet (for maintenance). The agent must infer usage from the tool name 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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Clean your virtual pet' suggests a mutation operation that might affect the pet's state, but it doesn't disclose whether this requires specific conditions, has side effects, or what the expected outcome is. The description lacks details on permissions, reversibility, or any behavioral traits 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 'Clean your virtual pet' is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the essential action, 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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. While it states the action, it lacks context about what 'clean' means operationally, how it differs from sibling tools, or what the result entails. For a mutation-like tool in a pet care context, more detail on effects or usage would improve completeness.
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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.
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 'Clean your virtual pet' states a clear action (clean) on a specific resource (virtual pet), which meets the basic requirement. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'feed_pet' or 'play_with_pet' beyond the different action verb, leaving some ambiguity about what 'clean' specifically entails compared to other pet care actions.
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 'feed_pet' or 'check_pet'. It implies usage in the context of pet care but offers no explicit when/when-not scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context without clear direction.
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 creates a pet but doesn't explain what 'virtual' entails, whether this is a one-time or repeatable action, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects like resource consumption. This leaves significant gaps for a 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what the tool returns, error conditions, or how it interacts with sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable 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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters, including an enum for 'type'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score without adding extra 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 action ('Create') and resource ('new virtual pet'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'check_pet' or 'feed_pet' beyond the creation aspect, 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 like 'check_pet' or 'feed_pet'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether a pet must be created before using other tools, or any exclusions for usage scenarios.
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 action ('put to sleep') and outcome ('restore energy'), but doesn't describe side effects (e.g., does this make the pet unavailable for other actions?), time requirements, or success conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 key action and purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Put your virtual pet to sleep' specifies the action, and 'to restore energy' clarifies the goal. There is no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (simple mutation with no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but doesn't cover behavioral details like side effects or energy restoration mechanics. For a mutation tool, more context on outcomes or constraints would improve completeness.
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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools when the description is adequate for the action.
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 ('put to sleep') and the resource ('virtual pet'), with the specific purpose 'to restore energy'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_pet' or 'play_with_pet' by focusing on energy restoration rather than status checking or entertainment. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., 'feed_pet' might also restore energy).
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 usage context ('to restore energy'), suggesting this tool should be used when the pet's energy is low. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when NOT to use it (e.g., if the pet is already sleeping) or mention alternatives like 'feed_pet' for energy restoration. The context is clear but lacks exclusion criteria or sibling comparisons.
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:

[![mcpet MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/shreyaskarnik/mcpet/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/shreyaskarnik/mcpet)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/shreyaskarnik/mcpet'

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