MoziChem-MCP

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is potential confusion between 'calc_fugacity_gas_mixture' and 'calc_gas_component_fugacity' since both involve gas fugacity calculations. The descriptions clarify that one is for mixtures and the other for single components, but the naming could lead to initial ambiguity. The other tools target clearly different operations like root analysis and method reference retrieval.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming follows a consistent snake_case pattern throughout, which is good. However, there is a mix of verb styles: 'calc_' prefix for fugacity tools versus 'get_' and 'component_'/'multi_component_' prefixes for others. This minor inconsistency in verb usage prevents a perfect score, but the overall structure remains readable and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, this server is well-scoped for its chemical engineering domain focused on fugacity calculations and EOS analysis. Each tool appears to serve a specific purpose, such as fugacity calculations for different phases, root analysis, and reference retrieval, making the count appropriate without being overwhelming or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers key aspects of fugacity and EOS analysis, including calculations for gas mixtures, single gas components, and liquid components, as well as root analysis for both single and multi-component systems. A minor gap is the lack of tools for updating or modifying inputs or results, but core workflows are well-covered for the apparent domain.
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 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 full burden. It states this 'retrieves' reference inputs, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational context 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity. The structure is straightforward but lacks depth.
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 has an output schema (which handles return values), low parameter complexity (1 parameter), and no annotations, the description is minimally complete. It states the purpose but lacks usage guidelines, parameter details, and behavioral context, making it adequate only in a basic sense with clear gaps for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'a specific method' but doesn't explain what 'method_name' represents, valid formats, examples, or constraints. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the bare schema, failing to clarify parameter semantics adequately for the single required parameter.
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 verb 'retrieves' and the resource 'reference inputs for a specific method', specifying it includes 'data and equations'. It distinguishes this as a lookup function rather than a calculation tool like its siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar retrieval tools (none present in siblings).
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for method selection, or relationships to sibling calculation tools (e.g., whether this should be called before or after them). It merely states what it does without usage context.
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 what the tool does (calculates fugacity) and lists supported EOS models, but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: computational complexity, accuracy limitations, assumptions about ideal mixing, whether it handles phase equilibria, what the output format looks like, or potential error conditions. For a complex thermodynamic calculation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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, efficient sentence that states the core functionality upfront. It wastes no words and gets directly to the point. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the 'what' from the 'how' or adding brief context about fugacity calculations in thermodynamics.
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 (thermodynamic calculations with multiple EOS models), no annotations, but with both comprehensive input schema (100% coverage) and output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but for such a specialized tool, more context about assumptions, limitations, or typical use cases would be helpful despite the structured data coverage.
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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions the EOS models (which are already enumerated in the schema) but doesn't provide additional context about when to choose specific models, their relative accuracy, or limitations. With comprehensive schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.
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: 'calculates the fugacity of a mixture of gases using different equation of states'. It specifies the verb ('calculates'), resource ('fugacity of a mixture of gases'), and methods ('Peng-Robinson, Soave-Redlich-Kwong, Redlich-Kwong, and van der Waals'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'calc_gas_component_fugacity' or 'calc_liquid_component_fugacity', which appear to calculate fugacity for individual components rather than mixtures.
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 sibling tools like 'calc_gas_component_fugacity' or 'calc_liquid_component_fugacity', nor does it specify scenarios where this mixture calculation is appropriate versus component-level calculations. The only implied usage is for gas mixture fugacity calculations, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the calculation method (EOS models), it doesn't describe what the tool returns, potential side effects, error conditions, computational complexity, or any behavioral traits. For a scientific calculation tool with 7 parameters, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could be slightly more structured by front-loading the most critical information about single-gas component focus.
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 (7 parameters, scientific calculation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, it should provide more context about when to use this specific tool versus alternatives and what the calculation entails. The output schema existence reduces the need to describe return values, but other contextual gaps remain.
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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions the EOS models (which are already in the schema's enum) but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, default behaviors, or practical usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 function's purpose: 'calculates the fugacity of single-gas component using different equation of states'. It specifies the resource (single-gas component fugacity) and the method (EOS models: PR, SRK, RK, vdW). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'calc_fugacity_gas_mixture' or 'calc_liquid_component_fugacity', which would require a 5.
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. There are clear sibling tools for gas mixtures and liquid components, but the description doesn't mention these distinctions or provide any context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or limitations.
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 'analyzes' but doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only calculation, if it modifies data, what the output contains, or any performance characteristics. The description is too minimal for a tool with computational complexity.
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, efficient sentence that states the core function. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness.
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 that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a computational tool with no annotations and sibling tools available, the description should provide more context about when to use this specific tool and what 'analyzes the roots' means in practical terms.
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 all parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'temperature and pressure' but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when 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 verb ('analyzes') and resource ('roots of the EOS for a given component'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'multi_component_eos_roots_analysis', which appears to handle multiple components versus this single-component tool.
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 'multi_component_eos_roots_analysis' or other EOS-related tools. It mentions temperature and pressure but doesn't specify typical use cases or prerequisites.
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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions analysis but doesn't disclose what 'analyzes the roots' entails computationally, whether it's read-only or mutating, error conditions, performance characteristics, or output format. For a complex scientific tool, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could be more front-loaded with key distinctions from siblings.
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 scientific complexity, 4 parameters, no annotations, but with a rich input schema (100% coverage) and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on usage, behavioral traits, and differentiation from siblings, which are important for an AI agent to use it correctly in a server with related tools.
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%, providing detailed documentation for all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions 'mixture of components' which relates to the 'components' parameter and 'specified temperature and pressure' which maps to those parameters, but doesn't explain why these inputs are needed or their role in EOS analysis.
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: 'analyzes the roots of the EOS for a mixture of components at specified temperature and pressure.' It specifies the verb ('analyzes'), resource ('roots of the EOS'), and scope ('mixture of components'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'component_eos_roots_analysis' which might be for single components.
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 sibling tools like 'calc_fugacity_gas_mixture' or 'component_eos_roots_analysis', nor does it specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases for EOS root analysis in mixtures.
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 mentions the calculation method and EOS options but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like computational complexity, accuracy limitations, error conditions, or what the output represents. For a complex thermodynamic calculation tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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 efficiently structured in two sentences that convey the core functionality. The first sentence clearly states what the tool does and the available EOS options, while the second provides additional context about the calculation basis. There's no wasted language, though it could benefit from more behavioral context.
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 (thermodynamic calculations with multiple EOS models and solver methods) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and significant behavioral aspects unaddressed (like computational characteristics or limitations), it doesn't provide complete context for effective tool selection and 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%, providing good documentation for all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning only 'EOS used for the gas phase and Poynting correction' which relates to the 'eos_model' and 'liquid_fugacity_mode' parameters but doesn't provide additional semantic context about how these choices affect the calculation.
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 ('calculates the fugacity'), target ('single-liquid component'), and methods ('using different equation of states including Peng-Robinson, Soave-Redlich-Kwong, Redlich-Kwong, and van der Waals'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'calc_fugacity_gas_mixture' by specifying 'single-liquid component' rather than gas mixtures.
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 'calc_gas_component_fugacity' or 'calc_fugacity_gas_mixture'. It mentions the calculation is 'based on the EOS used for the gas phase and Poynting correction' but doesn't explain when this approach is appropriate or what prerequisites might be needed.
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:

[![mozichem-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sinagilassi/mozichem-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sinagilassi/mozichem-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mozichem-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sinagilassi/mozichem-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sinagilassi/mozichem-mcp)

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/sinagilassi/mozichem-mcp'

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