rescuedogs-mcp-server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.2.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of rescue dog data: search, details, filters, statistics, breeds, organizations, preferences matching, and adoption guide. No overlapping purposes.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'rescuedogs_[verb]_[noun]' using snake_case, e.g., rescuedogs_search_dogs, rescuedogs_get_dog_details.
Tool Count5/5
8 tools are well-scoped for a rescue dog adoption platform, covering search, discovery, and informational needs without being too many or too few.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers the full user journey: search, filter, view details, match preferences, explore breeds and organizations, and access adoption guidance. No significant gaps.
Average 3.5/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 12 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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 should disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get overall statistics' without specifying read-only nature, authentication needs, or data granularity (e.g., counts, breakdowns).
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?
One concise sentence of 9 words, starting with the verb 'Get'. No 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?
Despite low complexity, the description omits what the statistics include (e.g., counts, averages, distributions) and there is no output schema. The agent may lack understanding of the returned data.
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 100% for the single parameter 'response_format', which is fully defined in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning, but the baseline is 3 due to high 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'overall statistics about available rescue dogs', distinguishing it from sibling tools like search, details, and breeds.
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 such as rescuedogs_get_filter_counts or rescuedogs_search_dogs. The description does not indicate prerequisites or 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?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the tool returns counts and statistics, but lacks information on whether it's a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, or potential 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 two concise sentences that clearly state the tool's purpose and what it provides. No unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded.
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 moderate complexity (four optional parameters, no output schema), the description omits important details such as the actual structure of the response, which would be critical for an agent using this tool without a separate output schema.
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?
All four parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'get' and the resource 'available breeds with counts and statistics', making the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like search_dogs or get_dog_details.
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 vs alternatives. For example, it doesn't indicate that this is a pre-search step for browsing breeds, nor does it mention when to use rescuedogs_search_dogs instead.
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 present, so the description carries full transparency burden. It only states the tool lists organizations with stats, but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, pagination behavior, or the fact that output format depends on the response_format parameter. This leaves the agent underinformed.
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 9-word sentence. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly concise.
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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention output format options (though schema has response_format), pagination via limit, or the optional nature of country. Also lacks guidance on how this tool fits with sibling tools.
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?
Baseline is 3 because schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning or context to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. For instance, it does not explain how 'country' or 'active_only' filter results in practice.
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 action ('List'), the resource ('rescue organizations'), and the output scope ('statistics and available dogs count'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rescuedogs_search_dogs or rescuedogs_get_statistics by focusing on organizations.
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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention scenarios where it's not appropriate. For example, it could note that this tool is for browsing organizations, while rescuedogs_get_statistics provides aggregated stats.
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 only states it 'translates preferences into filters' without disclosing specific behaviors like pagination, output limits (image limit of 5 dogs is in param but not description), or side effects. Minimal 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Highly concise.
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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It lacks explanation of the transformation mechanism, response format, and limitations, leaving gaps for an agent.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds a brief summary of transformation but no new meaning beyond schema descriptions.
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 action ('Find dogs') and the resource ('that match your lifestyle preferences'), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'rescuedogs_search_dogs' by emphasizing preference-based matching.
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 implies use when matching lifestyle preferences but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or provide when-not scenarios. It is clear but lacks comparative 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 mentions return content (AI-generated profile, requirements, adoption info) but does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with the main action. Efficient but could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., listing what is included).
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?
No output schema, but the description adequately covers the main return fields (personality, requirements, adoption info) for a simple retrieval tool. Missing minor details like pagination or error handling.
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 each parameter already documented. The description adds no additional meaning or context 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 verb 'Get', the resource 'full details for a specific rescue dog', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search and list by focusing on a single dog via slug.
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?
Usage is implied from context; the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., search_dogs). No alternative or exclusion is mentioned.
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 carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as providing counts based on context, but omits crucial details: whether the operation is read-only, if it requires authentication, any rate limits, or what happens when filters produce no results. The lack of transparency could lead to incorrect assumptions.
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 with no filler. The key action and purpose are front-loaded, achieving maximum informational density.
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 and the presence of a response_format parameter, the description covers the basic purpose and usage. However, it lacks details on the returned data structure (e.g., which counts are provided) and does not compensate for the missing output schema. The complexity is low, so a score of 3 is adequate.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema—'based on current filter context' echoes the schema's parameter description. It does not elaborate on the structure of returned counts or how to interpret the response_format parameter.
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 specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'available filter options with counts', and the context 'based on current filter context'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_dogs' by focusing on filter enumeration rather than direct search results.
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 directly advises 'Use this to show users valid filter choices that won't result in empty searches'. This provides clear usage context, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it.
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 provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Get information', implying a read-only action, but fails to mention any potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. This is adequate for a non-destructive guide 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, well-structured sentence that concisely conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words.
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 the simplicity of the tool (no output schema, 2 optional params), the description adequately covers its functionality. However, it doesn't indicate the response format (e.g., text, structured data), which could be helpful but is not critical.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% (both parameters described). The description adds meaning by listing the topics ('transport, fees, requirements, timeline') that correspond to the topic enum values, enhancing understanding beyond the schema's basic descriptions.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get information') and clearly identifies the resource ('rescue dog adoption process') along with explicit aspects (transport, fees, requirements, timeline). This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like rescuedogs_search_dogs or rescuedogs_get_dog_details.
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 is for general adoption process inquiries but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus siblings. No alternatives or exclusions 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states it returns 'matching dogs with basic info', but does not detail what 'basic info' includes, pagination behavior, or any rate limits. For a read-only search tool, it minimally conveys safety, but could be more explicit about response structure.
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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a clear pointer to a sibling tool. No unnecessary words, every sentence 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?
The tool has 19 parameters, no output schema, and no behavioral annotations. The description is very brief, not summarizing the rich filtering capabilities or default behavior (e.g., limit=10, offset=0). It gives a high-level overview but lacks detail for an agent to fully understand the tool's scope without inspecting the schema.
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 100% (all 19 parameters have descriptions). The description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond the schema, only summarizing the tool's purpose. Per guidelines, with high coverage, baseline is 3; description does not elevate beyond that.
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 'Search for rescue dogs available for adoption from European and UK organizations', specifying the verb (search), resource (rescue dogs), and geographic scope. It distinguishes from the sibling tool rescuedogs_get_dog_details by noting this returns basic info, while that provides full profiles.
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 explicit guidance to use rescuedogs_get_dog_details for full profiles, indicating when this tool is appropriate vs. an alternative. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool relative to other siblings like rescuedogs_list_breeds or rescuedogs_get_filter_counts.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/ssatama/rescuedogs-mcp-server'

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