tribe-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose: compare_fingerprints compares two fingerprints, get_fingerprint retrieves full fingerprint data, get_organic_post retrieves a single post, list_brands returns all brands, list_fingerprints lists fingerprint metadata, list_organic_posts lists posts, and write_insight stores analysis. No overlap.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (list_brands, list_fingerprints, list_organic_posts, write_insight). However, there is minor inconsistency: compare_fingerprints uses plural, while get_fingerprint uses singular; get_organic_post is singular, but list_organic_posts is plural. Overall consistent but not perfect.
Tool Count5/5
7 tools is well-suited for the domain of brand fingerprint analysis and organic post management. Each tool covers a necessary operation without bloat, and the count is within the ideal 3-15 range.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers listing, retrieval, and comparison of fingerprints, listing and retrieval of posts, listing brands, and writing insights. Missing update/delete operations for most entities, but the stated purpose (analysis and insight persistence) is reasonably covered. Minor gaps exist.
Average 3.8/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'retention curve' but doesn't explain what it is, permissions required, side effects, or return value. The word 'pull' suggests read-only but is not explicit.
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 sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more structured to separate purpose from the retention curve detail.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks guidance on usage context relative to siblings and details about the retention curve output.
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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It clarifies 'id' is the post identifier, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema, but doesn't specify format or source.
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 verb 'pull', the resource 'single organic post', the identifier 'by ID', and distinguishes from sibling 'list_organic_posts' by specifying singularity and inclusion of 'retention curve'.
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 needing a single post by ID but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Sibling tools like 'list_organic_posts' and 'get_fingerprint' exist but are not referenced.
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 must convey behavioral traits. It mentions persisting to a database and storing markdown as-is, but it does not clarify whether the operation is create vs update, required permissions, error behavior, or idempotency. Key behavioral context is missing.
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 at 31 words split into two sentences. It front-loads the key action and then provides usage guidance. Every word serves a 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?
No output schema exists, so the description should explain return values (e.g., an ID or success indicator). It does not. It also does not mention optional parameters like data_snapshot or date_range, leaving gaps for an agent trying to use the tool correctly. For a write tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficiently complete.
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 71% (5 of 7 parameters described). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions 'Markdown content is stored as-is,' which slightly reinforces the 'content' parameter, but adds no new semantics. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high coverage.
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 verb 'persist' and the resource 'analysis insight', and it differentiates from sibling tools which are all read-oriented.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use after producing a substantive analysis you want to keep', providing clear context. It does not discuss when not to use or alternatives, but sibling tools are not similar enough to cause confusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that diffing is not performed internally and that both full payloads are returned. This is transparent for the tool's basic behavior, though it omits details like rate limits or auth requirements.
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 two sentences and front-loaded with the key action and output. Every word is necessary; no redundancy or irrelevant detail.
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 no output schema, the description adequately states the return format as 'both full payloads', though it does not elaborate on what constitutes a full payload. For a simple tool, this is mostly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description provides no additional meaning for the parameters id_a and id_b. It only implies they are fingerprint IDs, but does not explain format, constraints, or usage beyond the schema.
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 tool pulls two neural fingerprints side-by-side and returns their full payloads. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_fingerprint (which retrieves a single fingerprint) by specifying the comparison context.
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 you need to compare two fingerprints by fetching their data), but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_fingerprint. It lacks exclusions or context on 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, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states basic listing and filtering, but omits details like ordering, pagination (limit parameter not addressed), authentication requirements, or rate limits. The lack of transparency limits an agent's ability to anticipate behavior.
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, front-loaded with the action and resource. No wasted words; every element (platforms, filtering) adds value.
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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the core action and main filters but misses the limit parameter and return format. For a listing tool, more detail on pagination would improve completeness.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions brand_id and platform as filters, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, the limit parameter is not explained. The description partially covers parameters but is incomplete.
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 explicitly states the verb 'List' and the resources 'Instagram + TikTok organic posts'. It also specifies filtering options, differentiating it from siblings like 'get_organic_post' (single post) and 'list_brands' (brands). The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use the tool: to list organic posts filtered by brand_id and/or platform. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases or mention alternatives, such as using 'get_organic_post' for a single post. The guidance is good but not exhaustive.
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?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns only metadata and hints at data source for brand_id from list_brands. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or other behaviors like sorting or pagination.
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?
Two sentences efficiently convey purpose, filtering, and distinction from a sibling tool. No wasted words.
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?
A list tool with 3 parameters and no output schema. Description covers basic purpose and filtering, but lacks details on pagination (limit behavior), ordering, and return format. Could be more complete for a list operation.
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 coverage is only 33% (brand_id). Description adds cross-reference for brand_id, but does not explain label enum values or provide details about limit beyond its default. Given low coverage, more parameter explanation is needed.
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 verb 'List' and the resource 'TRIBE neural fingerprints'. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_fingerprint' by noting this returns metadata only, and also mentions filtering options, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit context by stating that this tool returns metadata only and advises using 'get_fingerprint' for full data. However, it does not address when to use alternatives like 'compare_fingerprints' or mention any prerequisites or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 states the tool is 'heavy' and returns full channels and timeline, indicating large payload. This adds behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not disclose auth or rate limits.
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 two sentences: the first defines purpose, the second gives usage guidance. Every word adds value with no redundancy or fluff.
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?
For a simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains when to use and what data it returns. It could mention the absence of filtering or pagination, but the 'full payload' hint suffices.
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 one required string parameter 'id' with 0% description coverage. The description does not elaborate on the id parameter beyond its role in identifying the fingerprint. With a single parameter and clear purpose, it partially compensates but lacks format or constraints.
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 tool pulls a single neural fingerprint by ID with full channels and timeline data, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_fingerprints (which lists) and compare_fingerprints (which compares).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes 'Heavy — only call when you need the full payload,' giving clear context on when to use (for full data) and implicitly when not to (if a summary suffices). It does not explicitly name alternatives but the warning provides guidance.
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 burden. It describes a read-only list operation, which is consistent, but adds no extra behavioral context beyond listing all brands.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The action ('List all brands') is front-loaded, followed by the purpose. Excellent conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete enough—it explains what the tool does and why to use it.
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?
There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not need to explain parameters; it is adequate as is.
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 it lists all brands and explicitly mentions the purpose of discovering brand_id values, distinguishing it from sibling tools like compare_fingerprints or get_fingerprint.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly says 'Use to discover brand_id values for the other tools,' providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives.
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:

[![tribe-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/spxrtiat111/tribe-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/spxrtiat111/tribe-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![tribe-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/spxrtiat111/tribe-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/spxrtiat111/tribe-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/spxrtiat111/tribe-mcp'

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