OpenAI Assistant MCP Server

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 targeting specific resources and actions in the OpenAI Assistant domain. For example, list-assistants vs. retrieve-assistant for listing all vs. getting one by ID, and create-assistant vs. update-assistant vs. delete-assistant for full lifecycle management. No tools appear to overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with hyphens, such as create-assistant, delete-assistant, list-assistants, and upload-file. The naming is uniform throughout, making it predictable and easy for agents to understand the action and target resource.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, this server is well-scoped for managing OpenAI assistants and related files. The count is appropriate, covering core operations like CRUD for assistants and file management without being overwhelming or too sparse. Each tool earns its place in the workflow.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete coverage for the OpenAI Assistant domain, including full CRUD lifecycle for assistants (create, retrieve, update, delete, list) and file management (upload, list, delete). The ask-openai tool adds a direct interaction capability, ensuring no obvious gaps for agent workflows.
Average 2.9/5 across 9 of 9 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
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'Ask my assistant models a direct question', which implies a read-like interaction but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, response format, or potential side effects. For a tool with no annotations, 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 concise with a single sentence, 'Ask my assistant models a direct question', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it's overly brief to the point of under-specification, lacking necessary details for clarity. It earns a high score for conciseness but loses a point because the brevity compromises usefulness.
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 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context for an AI agent to understand what the tool does, how to use it effectively, or what to expect in return. The lack of behavioral and parameter details makes it inadequate for informed tool selection and invocation.
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 low at 25%, with only the 'query' parameter having a description ('Ask assistant'). The description text does not add any meaning beyond the schema: it doesn't explain what 'model' refers to, what 'temperature' or 'max_tokens' control, or how parameters interact. With 4 parameters and minimal schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving most parameters semantically unclear.
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 'Ask my assistant models a direct question' states a vague purpose: it indicates asking something to models but lacks specificity about what 'assistant models' are or what domain this operates in. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'create-assistant' or 'retrieve-assistant', which are clearly different operations. The verb 'ask' is generic, and 'direct question' is ambiguous without context.
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 any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given siblings like 'create-assistant' or 'list-assistants', there's no indication of how this tool relates to them or when it's appropriate to ask a question versus performing other assistant-related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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. 'Delete a file' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but the description doesn't warn about this, mention permissions required, or describe what happens upon success/failure. This is inadequate for a destructive operation.
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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the key action and resource. There's zero waste or redundancy, making it efficient for quick comprehension.
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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context like behavioral warnings, success/error outcomes, or usage constraints, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate safely and 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%, with the schema fully documenting the single parameter 'file_id'. The description adds no parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without adding 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 ('Delete') and resource ('a file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete-assistant' or 'list-files' beyond the resource name, 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 'list-files' or 'upload-file', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid file_id). It's a bare statement with no contextual usage information.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates an assistant but doesn't mention any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether creation is reversible (via 'delete-assistant'), rate limits, cost implications, or what the response looks like. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized for a creation tool and front-loaded with the essential action. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent 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 complexity of creating an OpenAI assistant (with 6 parameters, 3 required) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like what happens after creation (e.g., returns an assistant ID), dependencies on other tools (e.g., 'upload-file' for file_ids), or error conditions. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool effectively in isolation.
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 6 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'file_ids' interacts with 'enable_file_search'). This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.
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 ('a new OpenAI assistant'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update-assistant' or 'list-assistants' by specifying creation rather than modification or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'upload-file' which also creates resources, though of a different type.
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., needing file IDs from 'upload-file' first), when not to use it (e.g., for updating existing assistants), or explicit alternatives like 'update-assistant' for modifications. 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool deletes an assistant, implying a destructive mutation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, rate limits, or what happens to associated data. This is a significant gap for a destructive 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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, 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?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks critical behavioral context (e.g., permanence, side effects) and doesn't compensate for the absence of structured fields, leaving the agent with insufficient information for safe invocation.
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 single parameter 'assistant_id' documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or sourcing guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation.
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 ('Delete') and target resource ('an OpenAI assistant'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'delete-file' beyond the resource type, missing explicit sibling distinction.
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 (e.g., needing an existing assistant ID), exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'update-assistant' or 'retrieve-assistant' for different operations.
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 basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature (implied but not explicit), error handling (e.g., for invalid IDs), response format, or any rate limits or authentication needs. This is inadequate for a 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent 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 complexity (a retrieval operation with no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., assistant details, configuration), error scenarios, or how it fits into workflows with siblings like 'update-assistant'. This leaves significant 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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'assistant_id' fully. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, source of IDs, or constraints), meeting the baseline but not enhancing 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 verb ('retrieve') and resource ('OpenAI assistant by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-assistants' or 'update-assistant' beyond the basic action, missing explicit comparison that would earn 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing assistant ID), contrast with 'list-assistants' for discovery, or specify use cases like fetching details for modification. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool 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 for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool uploads files but doesn't mention permissions required, file size limits, supported formats, whether uploads are permanent, or what happens after upload. This is 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.
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 simple tool with one parameter.
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 file upload tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after upload, whether files are stored persistently, what authentication is needed, or any error conditions. The context signals indicate this is a mutation tool (upload implies write), yet behavioral details are missing.
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 the single parameter 'file_path'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score.
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 ('upload') and resource ('a file'), specifying it's 'for use by assistants'. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'delete-file' or 'list-files' beyond the obvious verb difference.
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 is provided. The description mentions 'for use by assistants' but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or when other file-related tools might be more appropriate.
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 basic action without disclosing behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what data is returned. It misses critical context for a list operation.
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 zero waste, front-loaded with the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.
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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on return format, pagination, or error handling, which are important for a list operation even without annotations.
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 the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no inputs are required, aligning with the schema.
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 ('List') and resource ('OpenAI assistants'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve-assistant' or explain scope limitations, keeping 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 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 'retrieve-assistant' (for single assistant details) or 'create-assistant' (for creating new ones). The description lacks context about usage scenarios or exclusions.
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 lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'List' but not explicit), what the output format might be (e.g., list of file IDs or metadata), pagination behavior, or any rate limits. The description adds minimal context 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 is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.
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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what 'files available for assistants' means (e.g., uploaded files vs. system files), the return format, or behavioral traits like safety or performance. For a simple list tool, it meets basic needs but leaves gaps.
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 mention parameters, and it adds value by specifying the scope ('available for assistants'), which isn't captured in the schema. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary details.
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 ('List') and resource ('files available for assistants'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'upload-file' or 'delete-file' beyond the obvious list vs. create/delete distinction, 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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether files must be uploaded first), compare it to other listing tools (like 'list-assistants'), or indicate when not to use it (e.g., for filtering or detailed file retrieval).
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. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't describe what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs. complete updates), whether changes are reversible, permission requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant behavioral 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, clear sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded and wastes no space on 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?
For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context for safe and effective use is lacking.
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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema properties. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing OpenAI assistant'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create-assistant' and 'delete-assistant' by specifying it modifies existing assistants rather than creating new ones or deleting them.
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 when modifying an existing assistant, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'create-assistant' or 'retrieve-assistant'. It mentions 'existing' which differentiates from creation, but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.
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:

[![openai-assistant-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/snilld-ai/openai-assistant-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/snilld-ai/openai-assistant-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![openai-assistant-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/snilld-ai/openai-assistant-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/snilld-ai/openai-assistant-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/snilld-ai/openai-assistant-mcp'

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