Loop MCP Server

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

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 with no overlap: initialize_array sets up processing, get_next_item and get_next_batch retrieve work, store_result saves outcomes, get_all_results aggregates final results, and reset clears state. The descriptions make it unambiguous when to use each tool.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern (e.g., get_all_results, store_result, initialize_array). The naming is uniform and predictable, using snake_case throughout with clear action-object pairs.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, this server is well-scoped for processing tasks, covering initialization, retrieval, storage, aggregation, and reset. Each tool earns its place without redundancy, fitting a typical workflow efficiently.
Completeness5/5
The toolset provides complete coverage for a processing loop domain: initialize, retrieve items/batches, store results, get final results, and reset. There are no obvious gaps, enabling agents to handle the full lifecycle without dead ends.
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. It states 'initialize' and 'to be processed,' implying a setup or preparation action, but fails to detail behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only or mutative operation, if it requires specific permissions, or what happens to the array after initialization. This is inadequate 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 a single sentence, 'Initialize the array and task to be processed,' which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it is overly brief, bordering on under-specified, as it lacks necessary details for clarity. It earns a 4 for efficiency but loses points for not providing enough substance.
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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it interacts with sibling tools, or the processing behavior implied by 'to be processed.' For a setup tool in a processing workflow, more context is needed to guide the agent 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters ('array,' 'task,' 'batchSize') with descriptions and constraints. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or usage context. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.
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 'Initialize[s] the array and task to be processed,' which provides a vague purpose. It mentions the verb 'initialize' and resources 'array' and 'task,' but lacks specificity on what 'processed' entails, making it unclear compared to siblings like 'get_next_batch' or 'store_result.' No differentiation from siblings is provided, leaving ambiguity in its exact function.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it should be called before other tools like 'get_next_item' or after 'reset.' This absence of usage instructions leaves the agent without clear direction in a server with multiple related tools.
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 mentions storing results but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as where results are stored (e.g., memory, database), whether this is a write operation, if it's idempotent, or any side effects like overwriting previous data. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely performs mutations.
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 action ('Store the result'). It could be slightly more structured by clarifying the tool's role in a workflow, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.
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 storage tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after storage (e.g., success confirmation, error handling), the storage mechanism, or how it integrates with siblings like 'get_all_results'. This leaves critical gaps for agent usage.
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 parameter 'result' documented as 'The result of processing the current item or array of results for batch processing'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it mirrors the schema's explanation. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 action ('Store') and the target ('result of processing'), but it's vague about what 'processing' entails and doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'initialize_array' or 'reset'. It specifies 'current item or batch of items' which adds some scope but remains general.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_all_results' or 'initialize_array'. The description implies usage after processing items, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers, leaving the agent to infer timing.
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 only states the action ('reset') without disclosing behavioral traits such as what 'processing state' entails, whether this is destructive, requires specific conditions, or has side effects. It's minimally informative for a tool that likely modifies state.
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 with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it could be more front-loaded with additional context to improve clarity 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 complexity implied by 'reset' (likely a state-modifying operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'processing state' means, what gets reset, or the outcome, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.
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 information is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters, aligning with the baseline for 0 params.
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 'Reset the processing state' states a clear action ('reset') but is vague about what 'processing state' refers to and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'initialize_array' or 'store_result'. It's not tautological but lacks specificity about the resource being reset.
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 'initialize_array' or 'get_next_batch'. The description implies a reset operation but doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no contextual usage cues.
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 mentions retrieving an item and task but doesn't explain side effects (e.g., if this marks the item as processed), permissions, rate limits, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool likely involved in processing workflows.
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, making it appropriately sized for its 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 implied by sibling tools (e.g., 'reset', 'store_result') and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify the tool's role in a broader processing system, return values, or interactions with other tools, leaving agents under-informed.
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 doesn't add param info, but with zero params, the baseline is 4 as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.
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 'Get[s] the next item to process along with the task', which provides a verb ('Get') and resource ('next item to process'), but it's vague about what 'item' and 'task' refer to. It doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_next_batch' or 'get_all_results', leaving ambiguity in scope.
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 such as 'get_next_batch' or 'get_all_results'. The description implies sequential processing but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit alternatives, offering 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It mentions 'next batch' implying sequential retrieval but doesn't disclose whether this is stateful, what happens at the end of batches, error conditions, or performance characteristics. The description is too vague for a mutation/read operation distinction.
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 appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and front-loads the essential 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?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'items' are, how batches are configured, what format results come in, or how this differs from similar tools. The agent would struggle to use this correctly without additional context.
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 zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't attempt to explain non-existent parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose.
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 ('Get') and resource ('next batch of items to process'), specifying it's based on configured batch size. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_next_item' or 'get_all_results', which would require more specific comparison.
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 'get_next_item' or 'get_all_results'. The description mentions 'based on the configured batch size' but doesn't explain what configuration this refers to or prerequisites for usage.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by specifying the error condition ('will return an error if processing is not complete'), which is useful context beyond the basic 'get' action. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what 'results' entail (e.g., format, size), making it only moderately transparent.
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 two sentences that are front-loaded and efficient: the first states the purpose, and the second adds a critical behavioral note. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for optimal clarity, keeping it from a perfect score.
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 (involves processing state), no annotations, no output schema, and 1 parameter with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and error condition but lacks details on return values, what 'processing' entails, or how it interacts with siblings like initialize_array, leaving room for improvement.
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 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, providing a clear default and meaning for 'summarize.' The description doesn't mention parameters at all, so it adds no semantic value beyond the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.
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: 'Get all results after all items have been processed.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('all results'), and the condition ('after all items have been processed') helps distinguish it from siblings like get_next_batch or get_next_item. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from store_result or reset, which keeps it from 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool by stating 'after all items have been processed' and warns it 'will return an error if processing is not complete.' This provides some context for usage timing. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives like get_next_batch for partial results or explain when not to use it, leaving gaps in guidance.
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:

[![loop_mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/smogili1/loop_mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/smogili1/loop_mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![loop_mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/smogili1/loop_mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/smogili1/loop_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/smogili1/loop_mcp'

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