Skip to main content
Glama
stringtheoryaccelerator

Maine Burn Permit MCP Server

by stringtheoryaccelerator
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one is for applying for a permit, and the other is for checking fire danger conditions. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool based on the task.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (apply_for_burn_permit and check_fire_danger), using snake_case and descriptive action-oriented names. This consistency aids in predictability and readability.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for its apparent scope of managing burn permits in Maine. Key operations like checking permit status, updating permits, or canceling permits are missing, which limits functionality and may require workarounds.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for a burn permit management domain. It lacks essential CRUD operations such as viewing existing permits, updating permit details, or canceling permits, leaving significant gaps that could cause agent failures in real-world workflows.

  • Average 3.6/5 across 2 of 2 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

  • This repository is licensed under ISC License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'automates the process' but doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only check or an actual submission that creates a permit, what permissions are needed, whether it's rate-limited, what happens on success/failure, or what the output contains. For a tool with 11 parameters that likely submits data, 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.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.

    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 that there's an output schema (though not shown), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a complex tool with 11 parameters and no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context about what the tool actually does (submission vs. simulation, authentication needs, etc.). The single sentence is adequate but leaves 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?

    The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, required status, enums, and formats. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

    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: 'Automates the process of applying for a Maine open burn permit.' It specifies the action (apply for) and resource (burn permit), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'check_fire_danger' beyond the different action verbs.

    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 the sibling tool 'check_fire_danger' or explain when an application is appropriate versus checking fire danger conditions. No usage context or exclusions are provided.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior3/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the purpose and outcome ('see if burning is allowed') but lacks details on behavioral traits such as data sources, update frequency, error handling, or authentication needs, which are important for a tool checking real-time danger ratings.

    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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and intended use without any redundant or unnecessary information, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

    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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers the core purpose and usage intent, but could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., data freshness, limitations) to fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

    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 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the 'town' parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the town is in Maine, but it does not provide additional semantics like format examples or constraints, so the 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 specific action ('Checks'), resource ('current fire danger rating'), and scope ('for a specific town in Maine'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'apply_for_burn_permit' which is about applying for permits rather than checking ratings.

    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 usage context by specifying 'to see if burning is allowed,' which helps understand when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like the sibling tool, leaving some guidance gaps.

    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

publicmcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

publicmcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

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/stringtheoryaccelerator/publicmcp'

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