Skip to main content
Glama
sifue

ZEN University Syllabus MCP Server

by sifue
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one retrieves detailed information for a specific course with search parameters, while the other fetches a simplified list of all courses. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to choose the correct tool based on the need for detailed vs. broad data.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with hyphens ('get-a-subject-with-detail' and 'get-list-of-all-subjects'), using clear, descriptive names that indicate their actions and targets. The naming style is uniform across the set, enhancing predictability.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels under-scoped for a university syllabus domain, which typically involves operations like searching, filtering, updating, or managing course data. This limited set may force agents to work around gaps, as it lacks comprehensive coverage for common syllabus interactions.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for a syllabus server, covering only retrieval (detailed and list) without essential operations like creating, updating, or deleting courses, or advanced search capabilities. This will likely cause agent failures when full lifecycle management is required.

  • Average 3.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.

    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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that parameters 'must be specified' and describes the freeword's purpose, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' entails. This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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 three sentences that efficiently cover purpose and parameter usage. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from parameter guidelines.

    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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and output details, leaving gaps in understanding how to use it effectively beyond basic parameter input.

    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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context by explaining that the freeword is for 'searching course names and similar keywords', but this doesn't significantly enhance the schema's details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

    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 ('Retrieve detailed course information') and resource ('from the ZEN University syllabus'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get-list-of-all-subjects', which likely retrieves a broader list without detailed information or filtering.

    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 by specifying that parameters 'must be specified' for retrieving detailed information, suggesting this tool is for targeted searches rather than general listing. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. the sibling tool or provide clear alternatives or exclusions.

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

  • Behavior3/5

    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 discloses the tool's behavior as a retrieval operation with a specific output format (simplified list with named properties), but lacks details about potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. The description adds some behavioral context but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

    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, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, scope, and differentiation from siblings. Every word earns its place with no redundant information, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

    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?

    Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate context by clearly explaining what the tool does, what it returns, and how it differs from alternatives. However, the absence of output schema means the description doesn't fully document the return structure beyond property names, leaving some ambiguity about format.

    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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and output. This meets the baseline expectation for tools with no parameters.

    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 specific action ('Retrieve'), resource ('list of all courses from the ZEN University syllabus'), and scope ('simplified list... containing only the essential properties'). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get-a-subject-with-detail' by emphasizing the simplified nature versus detailed information.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines5/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives by specifying it returns 'only the essential properties' and contrasting with the sibling tool name 'get-a-subject-with-detail', which implies a more detailed alternative. It clearly indicates this tool is for simplified overviews rather than detailed information.

    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

zen-syllabus-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

zen-syllabus-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/sifue/zen-syllabus-mcp'

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