slop-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.14.5
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct focus: authentication, customization, execution, management, and two reference tools with clear differentiation between full details and searchable output. No overlapping purposes.
Naming Consistency4/5
All names use snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: some start with a verb (auth_mcp, customize_tools, execute_tool, manage_mcps) while two start with 'slop' (slop_help, slop_reference), deviating from the verb_noun convention.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server covers authentication, customization, execution, management, and reference—a well-scoped set that is neither too sparse nor too heavy.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers core operations: auth (login/logout/status), customization (overrides and custom tools), execution, connection management, and detailed help/reference. No obvious gaps for its stated purpose.
Average 3.1/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 39 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 16, 2026
- 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.
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?
No annotations exist, so the description must bear full burden. It only states 'Returns text' and lists actions, failing to disclose side effects (e.g., state changes from register/unregister/reconnect), authorization needs, or any behavioral nuances per action. This is dangerously vague for a management tool.
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 short and front-loaded with purpose and action list. It is efficient but could be slightly improved by grouping actions by type or adding minimal context.
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?
Despite high complexity (10 parameters, multiple actions, no output schema), the description is extremely brief. It omits action-specific details, parameter dependencies, return format beyond 'text', and any operational constraints. This is far from complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema. It does not specify which actions require which parameters, leaving the agent to infer from schema alone.
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 identifies the tool's purpose: managing MCP connections, with a list of specific actions. This distinguishes it from siblings like auth_mcp or execute_tool. However, it could be improved by briefly describing what each action does.
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, nor when to choose one action over another. For a multi-action tool, this omission significantly hinders correct selection and invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only indicates that the output is 'formatted text' but does not specify the format (e.g., markdown, plain text), whether the tool is read-only, error handling, or prerequisites. This is insufficient.
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 very concise with one sentence, but it sacrifices clarity by omitting important context. While front-loaded, it could be expanded slightly to improve completeness without losing 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 no annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context about what 'full details' includes (e.g., description, parameters, examples) and the output format. Currently, it does not give enough information for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
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 schema already describes the parameter 'name' as 'SLOP function name'. The description adds 'by name', which is redundant. It does not clarify permissible values, how to find valid names, or any additional semantics beyond the schema.
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 provides 'Full details for SLOP function by name' and returns formatted text, which identifies the tool's purpose. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'slop_reference', which might also provide details, reducing clarity.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'slop_reference', 'search_tools', or 'run_slop'. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
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. It only states 'Returns text' and lists actions, omitting side effects (e.g., token storage, destructive nature of logout), prerequisites, or stateful 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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. However, it may be too terse, missing critical details that could aid an agent.
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 multiple actions and no output schema or annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not cover error handling, OAuth flow details, or output structure beyond 'text', leaving significant gaps.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats schema info (actions list, name requirement) without adding new semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.
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 domain ('OAuth for MCP servers') and lists specific actions (login, logout, status, list) with brief explanations. It distinguishes from sibling tools which cover other areas like tool execution or metadata.
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 implicitly indicates usage for authentication tasks but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only lists action names and parameter cues, without explaining side effects, permissions, or impact on tool definitions. This is insufficient for a tool that modifies system 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 very concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence captures the core purpose, and the second lists actions. It is front-loaded and efficient, though some might desire more structure or detail.
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's complexity (14 parameters, multiple actions, nested objects, no output schema), the description is too brief. It does not explain how to use each action, what the tool returns, or provide a workflow. The schema covers parameter details, but the description lacks actionable context.
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 described adequately in the schema. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond listing the action enum values, which are already in the schema. Baseline 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 that the tool is for overriding tool descriptions and defining custom tools, listing the specific actions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like manage_mcps or execute_tool, which have different purposes.
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 lists available actions but does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage through the name and actions, but no guidance on when not to use it or which other tools to consider.
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 fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions output modes but fails to disclose side effects, rate limits, authorization needs, or that the operation is read-only. For a search tool, these are critical gaps without annotations.
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, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the purpose and efficiently explain the key flags. Every word serves a purpose; there is no redundancy or fluff.
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 no output schema and 5 parameters, the description could provide more context about default behavior, pagination, or result format for compact mode. The mention of 'name+signature' helps, but the agent might lack full understanding of the expected response structure.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats information already present in the schema (e.g., verbose and list_categories effects), adding no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. No additional value is delivered.
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: 'Search SLOP built-in functions.' It includes specific details about output modes (compact, verbose, list_categories) that differentiate it from sibling tools like search_tools and slop_help, ensuring an agent can identify its unique role.
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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it. While it implies usage for looking up SLOP functions, it lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer applicability.
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 exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses passthrough behavior and that response is returned as-is, which is helpful. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps for a mutation-capable 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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence contributes value with no unnecessary words or repetition.
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 generic executor with moderate complexity (3 params, nested object) and no output schema, the description adequately states the basic behavior. However, it omits potential errors, prerequisites, and behavior when the target tool is missing, making it adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description. The description adds 'passes parameters through' which reinforces the meaning but does not provide additional context beyond the schema. Baseline 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 'Execute tool on MCP server' with specific verb+resource. It adds that parameters are passed through and response is returned as-is, distinguishing it from sibling tools like manage_mcps or search_tools which have more specific purposes.
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 executing any tool on an MCP server, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like search_tools or get_metadata. No when-not or prerequisite information is given.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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