TablaFocusMCP

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.2.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes (e.g., building vs. transposing compositions, cataloging taals vs. certification). However, explain_taal is a compatibility alias for taal_catalog, creating potential confusion and overlap.
Naming Consistency3/5
All names use snake_case but the pattern is mixed: most are noun_noun (e.g., certification_catalog, glossary_lookup) while compose_builder and explain_taal are verb_noun. This inconsistency could confuse agents expecting a uniform verb_noun pattern.
Tool Count5/5
Nine tools are well-scoped for the domain of tabla and Indian classical music education. The count is neither too sparse nor overwhelming, covering catalog, composition, practice, assessment, and certification without redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers key operations: cataloging, composition building/transposing/validating, glossary, practice planning, and assessment. Minor gaps like a dedicated composition listing or user management exist, but they are not essential for the core purpose.
Average 2.9/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 2.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 5 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 4, 2026
- 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, and the description only states it uses data from taal_catalog. It does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or return behavior, leaving agents uninformed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While very short, the description is overly terse and fails to front-load key information. It prioritizes brevity over necessary detail, making it less useful.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns or how it explains Taal. It lacks completeness, leaving significant ambiguity.
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?
The description adds no meaning to the 'taal' parameter; schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain what the parameter should be. This is a critical gap.
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?
Description states it is a compatibility alias and uses canonical data from taal_catalog, but does not clarify what explanation it provides or how it differs from the actual explain functionality. The title and name imply explanation, but the description is vague.
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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like taal_catalog or other tools. The description only mentions compatibility without specifying 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions output includes 'answer key and rubric', but nothing about generation randomness, mutability, permissions, or side effects. Critical behavioral details are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that gets to the point quickly. However, it sacrifices necessary information for brevity, making it under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain how parameters affect output, what the return value contains, or any dependencies.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the 6 parameters. It does not mention mode, board, certification_level, taal, count, or seed, leaving their meaning entirely unexplained.
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 uses the verb 'Build' and specifies the resource as 'practice quiz or certification-style mock'. It distinguishes from siblings like certification_catalog and practice_coach by mentioning 'from the configured quiz bank with answer key and rubric', but does not explicitly contrast with compose_builder or other tools.
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 does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or compare with sibling tools such as practice_coach or compose_builder.
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?
Annotations are absent, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only claims 'mathematically valid' without explaining what that entails (e.g., idempotency, side effects, return format). Lacks critical behavioral context.
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?
Single sentence is efficient and front-loaded with key action and resource. No redundant information, but could benefit from structured enumeration of parameters.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not specify return values, composability, or constraints (e.g., valid combinations of form and jati), leaving the agent underinformed.
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%. Description mentions 'taal' and 'jati' but does not explain 'form' (likely the composition type) or 'cycles'. The hint that 'tihai, tukra, chakradhar' map to 'form' is indirect, leaving ambiguity.
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?
Description states specific verb 'Build' and resource 'compositions' (tihai, tukra, chakradhar) with required context (taal, jati). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like composition_transposer and composition_validator, though it does not explicitly mention output format.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., composition_validator). No mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It hints at adaptation based on availability and fatigue but does not disclose whether the tool is destructive, modifies state, or requires permissions. Behavioral details are minimal.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is concise, though breaking into separate sentences for plan creation and updates could improve clarity.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and nested objects, the description lacks information about return values, side effects, or interpretation of output. It is incomplete for an AI agent to invoke correctly.
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%, yet the description does not explain individual parameters beyond vague references to 'availability', 'missed sessions', and 'fatigue'. Goals and profile_id are unmentioned, leaving parameter meaning unclear.
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 (weekly plans and adaptive updates), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like assessment_builder and certification_catalog, though it could be more precise about 'adaptive updates'.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not include any exclusions, prerequisites, or context for appropriate usage, leaving the agent without decision support.
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 disclose behavioral traits. It mentions deriving states from progress but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether data is modified), authorization needs, or output structure. The description is vague on computational 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 sentence that packs relevant information without redundancy. It is concise but could benefit from slight restructuring for readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return format (skill tree, recommendations), how parameters interact, or what the agent should expect as output.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to explain the purpose or usage of each parameter (section, skill_id, practicing, recommend_limit, performance_ready). It only vaguely references 'self-reported progress' without mapping to input schema properties.
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 returns the tabla Sadhana Path skill tree and derives per-skill state, recommendations, and milestone progress from self-reported progress. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like assessment_builder or certification_catalog.
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 does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to other tools like practice_coach or daily_mission.
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?
Only states the tool browses content, with no disclosure of behavioral traits like pagination, default limits, or what happens on empty results. No annotations exist, so the description bears full burden, which it fails to meet.
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?
Two concise sentences that avoid verbosity. Each sentence adds value, but the structure could be improved by front-loading key information or using bullet points for parameters.
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?
Despite 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain default behavior, required formats for query/topic/category, or how results are returned, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
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?
The description explains only the 'mode' parameter, mentioning its enum options. With 0% schema coverage, it does not compensate for the other 7 parameters (day, month, year, limit, query, topic, category), leaving their meaning unclear.
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 browses a calendar and lore for tabla, specifying events, festivals, and facts. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like explain_taal or glossary_lookup, which also provide related content.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes basic operation without context on appropriate scenarios, such as when to choose events vs festivals vs facts.
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?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It mentions 'deterministically generate' and 'mirroring rotation', hinting at reproducibility and alignment with an external process, but fails to disclose if it's read-only, requires authentication, error handling, or output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is moderately concise and front-loaded with the action, but it packs many details making it slightly dense. It could be split for clarity without losing 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?
The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the mission types but omits explanation of date, sequence, output structure, or any preconditions, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.
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% but the description implicitly defines the 'kind' parameter by listing the four mission types, adding context beyond the raw enum. However, the 'date' and 'sequence' parameters are entirely undocumented, leaving ambiguity.
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 it generates a daily practice mission and lists the four specific types (creator spotlight, lightning quiz, etc.), which provides a strong verb-resource pairing. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like practice_coach or phrase_library, so it loses a point.
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 on when to use this tool vs. siblings, no prerequisites or usage context provided. The description only explains what it does, not when it should be selected.
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?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden but only hints at a read operation. It does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior when parameters are omitted (both optional).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is concise but under-specified. It could be restructured to front-load key details or add parameter clarifications without becoming verbose.
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?
The description is incomplete given no output schema and 0% parameter coverage. It fails to explain return format, optional parameter handling, or edge cases.
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%, and the description only indirectly references parameters via 'board-level' and 'level-wise.' No details on allowed values, formats, or defaults are provided.
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 returns a 'board-level certification catalog with level-wise syllabus objective breakdown and references,' which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like assessment_builder or glossary_lookup.
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 on when to use the tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or exclusions. The description simply states the action without usage context.
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?
Description mentions method (equation and timeline checks) but lacks details on side effects, permissions, return format, or handling of invalid input. With no annotations, it provides moderate but incomplete behavioral context.
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?
Single concise sentence with no waste, but could be better structured with separate purpose and parameter details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given high complexity (5 parameters, nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete, missing explanations of input structure and validation output.
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?
Description does not explain any of the five parameters (taal, form, jati, cycles, composition_input) beyond the schema, which has 0% description 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?
Description clearly states the tool validates user-entered tihai, tukra, or chakradhar structures using equation and timeline checks, distinguishing it from siblings like compose_builder or composition_transposer.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., practice_coach) or what prerequisites are needed.
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 mentions 'transpose' and 'preserving structural feel', implying modification, but does not disclose whether it mutates input, requires authentication, has rate limits, or handles errors. The phrase 'valid tihai, tukra, or chakradhar' hints at input requirements but lacks detail.
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 that conveys the core action and outcome efficiently. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, additional details about the required input composition structure could be included without reducing conciseness.
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 the input schema with nested objects and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the meaning of the composition input fields (P, G, M, etc.), the expected output format, or any constraints on the input composition beyond 'valid'. The tool's complexity warrants more comprehensive documentation.
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?
The input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning no descriptions on the parameters. The description only mentions 'valid tihai, tukra, or chakradhar' but does not explain how the complex nested fields (P, G, M, etc.) map to these composition types. The description fails to compensate for the low schema 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 tool transposes a valid tihai, tukra, or chakradhar into a new taal or jati context while preserving structural feel. It specifies the verb 'transpose', the resource (composition types), and the outcome, differentiating it from sibling tools like compose_builder or composition_validator.
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 the tool should be used when transposing a composition into a new rhythmic context, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like composition_validator or compose_builder. No exclusions or conditions are 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only lookup but does not disclose behavior for missing terms, multiple matches, or empty results. No mention of rate limits, permissions, or side effects.
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 sentence that is direct and to the point. There is no unnecessary information, and the key action and filters are presented upfront.
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 lookup tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on search behavior (e.g., what with no parameters, how limit is applied). It does not mention return format or pagination.
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 add meaning. It mentions 'by term text and/or category', covering term and category, but ignores the 'limit' parameter entirely. It does not explain parameter constraints or how they interact.
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's purpose: 'Lookup glossary terms by term text and/or category'. It uses a specific verb ('lookup') and resource ('glossary terms'), and distinguishes it from siblings that are unrelated (e.g., assessment_builder, certification_catalog).
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 does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or context. The sibling tool list is present but not referenced in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that results include 'tempo star ladders and teaching notes', implying a read operation, but does not disclose sorting, pagination, or default behavior when no parameters are given. The description is not misleading but lacks depth.
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 sentence of 20 words, front-loaded with the main purpose and filters, with no redundant or filler words. Every phrase 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 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable overview but lacks details on return format, default behavior (e.g., if no query provided), and pagination. It hints at output features but is not fully complete.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing the filterable fields: 'text, taal, gharana, usage tag, or difficulty'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's plain types and enums, clarifying how each parameter is used.
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's purpose: 'Look up tabla bol phrases' by various criteria, distinguishing it from sibling tools like composition_transposer or practice_coach. The verb 'look up' and resource 'tabla bol phrases' are specific, and the listed filters differentiate it from other lookup tools.
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 to find phrases by text, taal, etc., but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like glossary_lookup or skill_path. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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, the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates a read operation (return) and lists output content, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or safe, nor mention any behavioral traits like error handling.
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?
Single sentence of 15 words, front-loaded with verb and resource, no filler. Every word earns its place.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers core functionality (returning full catalog or entry with specific fields). Could mention error behavior or valid values but not critical given simplicity.
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 parameter taal_id has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds meaning by clarifying that omitting the parameter returns full catalog and providing it returns a single entry, which is useful semantics 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 verb 'Return' and resource 'taal catalog or one taal entry', and specifies included fields (matras, vibhag, sam/khali, clap-wave, counting guidance). It distinguishes from siblings like 'explain_taal' by focusing on raw catalog data.
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 for retrieving catalog data but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among sibling tools.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![TablaFocusMCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sreeramkongeseri/TablaFocusMCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sreeramkongeseri/TablaFocusMCP)

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/sreeramkongeseri/TablaFocusMCP'

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