Arcas OnlineEDA MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: natural language processing, navigation, project management, verification runs, and file uploads. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool for any given task.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'arcas_onlineeda_verb_noun' pattern, using snake_case throughout. This predictability aids in tool discovery and usage, with no deviations in naming conventions.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, this server is well-scoped for an OnlineEDA platform, covering core operations like querying, navigation, project management, verification, and file handling. Each tool earns its place without being overwhelming or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers essential CRUD-like operations for the OnlineEDA domain, including project management, file uploads, and verification runs. A minor gap exists in direct editing or deletion capabilities, but agents can likely work around this using the available tools.
Average 2.4/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored. Lowest: 1.6/5.
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
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

Behavior1/5
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 but fails completely. 'Manage projects' doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are required, whether actions are destructive, what happens when projects are deleted, or what the response format looks like. For a tool with four actions including 'delete', this lack of behavioral information is critical.
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 extremely concise - a single five-word phrase. While this is efficient and front-loaded, it's so brief that it under-specifies rather than being appropriately sized. Every word earns its place, but there simply aren't enough words to be helpful.
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's complexity (four actions including potentially destructive operations), zero annotation coverage, zero schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, how to use it, what parameters mean, what behaviors to expect, or what results will be returned. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.
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 provides zero information about any of the four parameters. With 0% schema description coverage (the schema only has basic type information without meaningful descriptions), the description fails to compensate by explaining what 'action', 'projectName', 'projectType', or 'projectId' mean, when they're required, or how they interact. The agent would have to guess parameter usage from the minimal schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Manage projects in OnlineEDA platform' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'arcas_onlineeda_project'. It provides a generic verb ('manage') without specifying what management actions are available or what resources are involved. While it mentions 'projects', it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'arcas_onlineeda_navigate' or 'arcas_onlineeda_run_verification'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any of the four sibling tools, doesn't explain what types of project operations are available, and offers no context about prerequisites or appropriate use cases. The agent would have no idea when this tool is the right choice.
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 'process' and 'extensive examples' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'process' entails (e.g., returns results, executes commands). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema.
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, efficient sentence that's appropriately sized. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Process natural language queries...'), though the 'extensive examples' part feels tacked on without clear value. There's minimal waste, but it could be more structured with clearer separation of purpose and usage.
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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it differs from other tools, or provide enough context for safe and effective use. For a natural language processing tool in a technical domain like EDA, more detail on behavior and outputs is needed.
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 compensate. It mentions 'natural language queries' which aligns with the 'query' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'context' parameter at all. The phrase 'extensive examples' might hint at usage but adds no specific semantics about parameter formats, constraints, or relationships. This fails to adequately cover the 2 undocumented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Process natural language queries for Arcas OnlineEDA operations' which provides a clear verb ('process') and resource ('natural language queries'), but it doesn't specify what type of processing occurs (e.g., interpretation, translation, execution) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'arcas_onlineeda_navigate' or 'arcas_onlineeda_project'. The mention of 'extensive examples' is vague about purpose.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'extensive examples' which might imply usage for complex queries, but there's no clear when/when-not criteria or named alternatives. Without context, it's unclear if this is for general queries, specific operations, or how it complements other tools.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'run various verification types' but doesn't explain what happens during execution (e.g., is it a long-running process, does it modify the project, are there side effects like resource consumption). For a tool with potential complexity (multiple verification types), this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool definition, though it could be more informative. There's no fluff or 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (multiple verification types, 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the tool returns, how verification outcomes are reported, or the implications of running different verification types. For a tool that likely involves significant processing, this leaves too much unspecified.
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 compensate for undocumented parameters. It doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—no explanation of what 'projectId' refers to, how 'verificationType' choices differ, or what 'options' might include. With 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('run') and target ('verification on OnlineEDA project'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'verification' entails and doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings (e.g., navigate, project, upload_file), which appear to be unrelated operations. It lacks specificity about the resource being verified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for selecting verification types, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'arcas_onlineeda_project'. Usage is implied only by the action itself, with no explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions 'navigate' but doesn't explain what this entails—e.g., whether it changes UI state, requires authentication, has side effects like loading pages, or handles errors. It lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, response format, or any platform-specific constraints, making it insufficient for a tool with no 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, clear sentence: 'Navigate to different sections of the OnlineEDA platform'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero waste, and is appropriately sized for a simple navigation tool. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential function without unnecessary elaboration.
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 (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address parameter usage, behavioral aspects like what 'navigate' returns or any side effects, or how it fits with sibling tools. For a tool with no structured data support, the description should provide more context to guide the agent effectively, but it falls short.
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 compensate for undocumented parameters. The description doesn't mention any parameters, even though there are 2 (action and projectId). It fails to add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'action' values like 'home' or 'projects' do, or when 'projectId' is required. This leaves parameters largely unexplained, scoring low due to the coverage 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?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Navigate to different sections of the OnlineEDA platform', which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb 'navigate' and resource 'OnlineEDA platform', but doesn't distinguish from siblings like arcas_onlineeda_project or arcas_onlineeda_run_verification, which might also involve platform interactions. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what 'navigate' entails compared to 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to choose this over sibling tools like arcas_onlineeda_natural_language for interactions. There's no explicit or implied usage advice, leaving the agent to infer based on 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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'upload' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify permissions needed, file size limits, overwrite behavior, error conditions, or what happens after upload. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic upload operation and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after upload, error handling, or provide enough context about the parameters to use the tool effectively.
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%, meaning all 3 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'design files' and 'OnlineEDA project' which loosely map to 'filePath' and 'projectId', but provides no details about parameter formats, constraints, or the optional 'fileType' enum values. It doesn't adequately compensate 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 ('upload') and target ('design files to OnlineEDA project'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'arcas_onlineeda_project' which might also handle project-related operations, keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'arcas_onlineeda_natural_language' and 'arcas_onlineeda_run_verification', there's no indication of when file upload is appropriate versus other project operations.
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:

[![arcas-onlineeda-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ssql2014/arcas-onlineeda-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ssql2014/arcas-onlineeda-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![arcas-onlineeda-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ssql2014/arcas-onlineeda-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ssql2014/arcas-onlineeda-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/ssql2014/arcas-onlineeda-mcp'

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