Personal Library MCP Server

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity: add_book, delete_book, list_books, search_books, and update_book_status each target specific operations in the library domain. The descriptions reinforce this clarity, such as list_books filtering unread books and update_book_status handling status changes, preventing misselection.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., add_book, delete_book, list_books). There are no deviations in style or convention, making the set predictable and easy to understand for an agent.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, this server is well-scoped for a personal library domain. Each tool earns its place by covering core operations like adding, deleting, listing, searching, and updating books, without being overly sparse or bloated.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides strong coverage for basic CRUD operations in a library context, including create (add_book), read (list_books, search_books), update (update_book_status), and delete (delete_book). A minor gap is the lack of a tool for editing book details beyond status (e.g., title or author), but agents can work around this with the existing tools.
Average 3.1/5 across 5 of 5 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. 'Adds' implies a mutation/write operation, but the description doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions needed, whether duplicates are allowed, error handling, or what the output contains. It lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or authentication 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. No extraneous information or redundancy is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, mutation operation) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It states the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, parameter explanations, and behavioral details needed for a mutation tool with no annotations. The output schema helps, but the description should do more to guide the 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?
With 0% schema description coverage and 7 parameters (5 required), the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't explain what 'isbn', 'genre', 'owned', or other parameters represent, their formats, or constraints. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter explanations.
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 ('Adds') and resource ('a new book to the library'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_book_status' or 'delete_book', which would require mentioning it's for creation rather than modification or removal.
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 'update_book_status' or 'delete_book'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., required fields), exclusions, or contextual cues for selection, leaving the agent to 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is destructive ('Removes'), but lacks details on permissions needed, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, error handling, or rate limits. 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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a destructive operation with no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks critical details like behavioral traits and parameter context, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't mention the 'isbn' parameter at all, failing to add meaning beyond the schema. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but the description doesn't explain what the ISBN is or how it's used, leaving a gap.
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 ('Removes') and resource ('a book from the library'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_book_status' which might also affect book availability, missing full 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. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the book must exist), when not to use it (e.g., for temporary removal), or refer to siblings like 'update_book_status' for non-destructive changes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the search functionality but omits critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, sorting), error handling, or performance characteristics. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core functionality ('Searches for books') and adds necessary detail ('by name or ISBN') without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (a search function with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter guidance, it lacks sufficient context for optimal agent use, such as error conditions or search scope limitations.
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 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning by specifying that the 'query' parameter searches 'by name or ISBN'. This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's basic type definition. However, it doesn't detail syntax, format constraints, or examples, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.
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 ('Searches for') and resource ('books'), and specifies the search criteria ('by name or ISBN'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_books' by implying a query-based search rather than listing all books. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'add_book' or 'delete_book', keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_books' (for browsing all books) or other siblings. It lacks explicit instructions on use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and context 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the task, earning a high score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, mutation operation) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks details on behavioral traits and parameter nuances, making it incomplete for optimal agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions updating 'owned and/or read status,' which aligns with the 'owned' and 'read' parameters in the schema, adding some semantic context. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't fully compensate by explaining parameter formats, defaults, or the 'isbn' requirement beyond what's implied. The baseline is 3 due to the partial alignment.
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 ('Updates') and the target resource ('owned and/or read status of a book by ISBN'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_book' or 'delete_book' beyond the 'update' verb, which is why it doesn't reach a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_book' for new books or 'delete_book' for removal. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the book must already exist in the system, or any exclusions for its use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists books but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how results are paginated or sorted, or what the output format entails. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential behavioral nuances.
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 two sentences that directly address the tool's function and key parameter usage. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, 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.
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 (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on behavioral traits like authentication needs or result limitations, and doesn't differentiate from siblings, leaving gaps in overall completeness.
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 description adds meaningful context for the 'unread_only' parameter by explaining its effect ('to see only the books you haven't read yet'), which goes beyond the schema's basic title and type. Since schema description coverage is 0% and there's only one parameter, this compensation is effective, though it could specify default behavior more explicitly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('books in the library'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'search_books' or 'update_book_status', which would require mentioning that this is a basic listing operation without filtering beyond unread status.
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 'search_books' or 'add_book'. It mentions the 'unread_only' parameter but doesn't explain broader usage contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/srgsanky/mcp-demo'

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