Pokémon MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tools have some overlap in purpose, particularly between get_pokemon_cry and play_pokemon_cry, which both handle Pokémon cries, and get_pokemon_info and get_pokemon_stats, where stats are a subset of info. However, the descriptions clarify distinctions like URLs vs. playback for cries, and full info vs. just stats, helping agents differentiate.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'get_' or 'play_' prefixes and descriptive suffixes like '_cry', '_images', '_info', and '_stats'. This uniformity makes the set predictable and easy to understand.
Tool Count4/5
With 5 tools, the count is reasonable for a Pokémon-focused server, covering key aspects like info, stats, images, and cries. It's slightly under-scoped as it lacks tools for broader operations like searching or listing Pokémon, but it's well-focused on retrieval tasks.
Completeness3/5
The server covers retrieval of Pokémon data (info, stats, images, cries) but has notable gaps: there are no tools for creating, updating, or deleting data, and no search or listing capabilities. This limits agents to read-only operations, which may be insufficient for interactive use cases.
Average 3/5 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
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what information is retrieved (stats, images, basic info), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format. The description is 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.
Conciseness4/5
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 simple retrieval tool, though it could potentially be more structured by separating the different information types for clarity.
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 simple retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what data is retrieved. However, it lacks details about the response format, error handling, and behavioral constraints that would be important for complete understanding, especially given the absence 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the single parameter 'pokemon' is fully documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, which states the parameter accepts either Pokémon name or ID number.
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 ('取得' - get/retrieve) and the resource ('ポケモンの完全な情報' - complete Pokémon information), including specific data types (stats, images, basic info). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_pokemon_stats or get_pokemon_images, which focus on subsets of this information.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pokemon_stats (for stats only) or get_pokemon_images (for images only). The description implies comprehensive data retrieval but doesn't explicitly state this as the distinguishing factor from sibling 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. It mentions downloading an audio file and returning information, but lacks details on behavioral traits like whether this requires network access, if it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or error handling. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the lack of annotations.
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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured by separating the action from the outcome for clarity.
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 (a tool that downloads and plays audio) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned, how the audio is handled, or any prerequisites. For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
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, with the parameter 'pokemon' documented as 'ポケモン名またはID番号' (Pokémon name or ID number). The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 given the 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: 'ポケモンの鳴き声を再生' (play Pokémon cry) and adds '音声ファイルをダウンロードして情報を返す' (download audio file and return information). It specifies the action (play/download) and resource (Pokémon cry), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_pokemon_cry' which might have overlapping functionality.
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 sibling tools or contexts where this tool is preferred, such as for playing sounds versus retrieving metadata. Usage is implied by the action described, but no explicit guidelines are given.
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 states the tool returns a URL for a Pokémon's cry audio file, which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't clarify aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens for invalid Pokémon names), response format, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance. There is no wasted information, earning it the highest 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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and output specifics. While it meets the minimum for a simple tool, it doesn't provide enough context for optimal agent use, such as error cases or sibling tool differentiation.
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, with the parameter 'pokemon' documented as 'ポケモン名またはID番号' (Pokémon name or ID number). The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints. Since the schema already fully describes the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
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: 'ポケモンの鳴き声音声ファイルのURLを取得' (Get the URL of a Pokémon's cry audio file). It specifies the verb '取得' (get) and resource '鳴き声音声ファイルのURL' (cry audio file URL), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'play_pokemon_cry' (which might play the cry directly rather than returning a URL), so it doesn't reach the highest 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. It doesn't mention sibling tools such as 'get_pokemon_info' or 'play_pokemon_cry', nor does it specify any context or prerequisites for usage. This lack of comparative or contextual information limits its effectiveness in guiding tool selection.
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 what is fetched (sprite images) but doesn't describe important behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, what format/images are returned (e.g., URLs, base64 data), if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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 and front-loaded in a single Japanese sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. Every word earns its place by specifying the resource type, image categories, and action. There's zero wasted text or redundancy.
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 (single parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should ideally provide more context about return values (e.g., what format the images are in) and behavioral traits. It meets the bare minimum but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of structured 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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'pokemon' fully documented in the schema as accepting Pokémon names or ID numbers. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description doesn't compensate or add value here.
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 ('取得' - get/fetch) and the specific resource ('ポケモンのスプライト画像' - Pokémon sprite images), including the types of images available (front, back, shiny variants, official artwork). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on images rather than cries, info, stats, or audio playback. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the most similar sibling (get_pokemon_info might also return images).
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 when this tool is appropriate (e.g., for visual display needs) or when to use siblings like get_pokemon_info (which might include images along with other data) or get_pokemon_cry (for audio). There's no explicit 'when-not' or alternative recommendations.
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 only states what the tool does (retrieve stats) without mentioning critical traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the specific stats retrieved. There is no wasted text, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for clarity.
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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what stats are retrieved but lacks context on behavioral traits, error handling, or output format. Without annotations or output schema, more detail would improve completeness for 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'pokemon' documented as 'ポケモン名またはID番号' (Pokémon name or ID number). The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, 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.
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: 'ポケモンの基礎ステータス（HP、こうげき、ぼうぎょ、とくこう、とくぼう、すばやさ）を取得' (Retrieve a Pokémon's base stats: HP, Attack, Defense, Special Attack, Special Defense, Speed). It specifies the verb ('取得' - retrieve) and resource ('ポケモンの基礎ステータス' - Pokémon base stats), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_pokemon_info, which might provide broader information.
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 does not mention sibling tools (e.g., get_pokemon_info for general info, get_pokemon_cry for sound) or specify contexts where this tool is preferred, leaving usage decisions to inference.
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:

[![poke_mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/t-daiki96/poke_mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/t-daiki96/poke_mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![poke_mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/t-daiki96/poke_mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/t-daiki96/poke_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/t-daiki96/poke_mcp'

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