Bakery Data MCP Server

by t2hnd

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with execute_sql for custom queries, get_schema for metadata, and specific query tools for different data types (departments, products, transactions). However, sales_summary and top_products could potentially overlap in functionality, as both provide aggregated sales insights, which might cause minor confusion in tool selection.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming follows a consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, such as execute_sql, get_schema, query_departments, query_products, query_transactions, sales_summary, and top_products. There is a minor deviation with sales_summary and top_products using a noun-based naming style instead of a verb prefix, but overall the pattern is predictable and readable.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the count is well-scoped for a bakery data server, covering essential operations like custom queries, schema inspection, data querying, and analytics. Each tool earns its place without feeling excessive or insufficient, aligning well with the server's purpose of data management and analysis.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for querying and analyzing bakery data, including schema access, master data queries, transaction details, and sales analytics. A minor gap exists in the lack of data modification tools (e.g., update or insert operations), but this is reasonable given the read-only nature implied by descriptions, and agents can work around this for most analytical workflows.
Average 3.1/5 across 7 of 7 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
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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. It mentions the tool 'Returns transaction details' but provides no information about permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the 'limit' parameter), error conditions, or what format the transaction details take. For a query tool with 8 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral aspects undocumented.
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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. The first sentence states the purpose and supported filters, while the second specifies the return type. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly grouping related parameters or mentioning default behaviors.
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 query tool with 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and filtering capabilities but lacks important context about the return format (what 'transaction details' includes), result ordering, error handling, and performance characteristics. With no annotations and no output schema, the agent has insufficient information about what to expect from this tool's behavior.
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 description lists the filtering capabilities (date range, product code/name, payment method, amount range), which aligns with the 8 parameters in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema - it provides a high-level grouping of parameters but no additional semantic context about how filters combine or their precedence.
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: 'Query POS transaction data' specifies both the verb (query) and resource (POS transaction data). It distinguishes from siblings like 'query_products' or 'sales_summary' by focusing specifically on transaction data rather than products or aggregated sales. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'execute_sql' which could also query transactions.
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 'execute_sql' (which could query transactions directly), 'sales_summary' (which provides aggregated data), and 'query_products' (which focuses on products), there's no indication of when this filtered transaction query is preferable. The description only states what it does, not when to choose 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the limit parameter), error conditions, or what format the summary statistics are returned in. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second elaborates on aggregation capabilities. There's no unnecessary verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured by separating different aspects of functionality.
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 5-parameter aggregation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'summary statistics' actually means (totals, averages, counts?), doesn't mention how results are structured when grouped, and provides no information about response format or error handling. The description leaves too many contextual gaps for effective tool selection and invocation.
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 the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the aggregation dimensions (date range, product, department, payment method) which correspond to some parameters, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This 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 as 'Get sales summary statistics' with specific aggregation dimensions (date range, product, department, payment method). It uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('sales summary statistics'), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'query_transactions' or 'top_products' which might overlap in sales data analysis.
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 mentions aggregation capabilities but doesn't specify scenarios where this summary tool is preferred over raw data queries like 'query_transactions' or specialized tools like 'top_products'. No exclusions or prerequisites 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool does but doesn't address important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what format the results will be returned in. The description is functional but lacks operational context.
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 appropriately concise with two clear sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds key capabilities. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with the most critical 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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (list format, fields returned), doesn't mention default behavior when parameters are omitted, and provides no context about performance characteristics or limitations. The description leaves too many operational questions unanswered.
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 the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions filtering by date range and department, which the schema already covers. It doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or edge cases beyond what's in the schema descriptions.
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: 'Get top selling products by quantity or revenue' with specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like query_products or sales_summary by focusing on ranking products. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., sales_summary might also provide ranking data).
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 like query_products, sales_summary, or execute_sql. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over other data retrieval tools in the server.
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 that the tool 'Returns all departments or filter by ID/name,' which implies read-only behavior and filtering capabilities. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'master data' entails. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to fully inform the agent.
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: two sentences that directly state the tool's function and filtering options. There's no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 moderate complexity (a query with filtering), no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and output details. It's adequate for a simple query tool but doesn't fully compensate for the missing annotations and 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?
The description adds minimal value beyond the input schema. It states 'filter by ID/name,' which aligns with the schema's parameters (department_id and department_name). However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents these parameters well. The description doesn't provide additional context like format examples or usage tips, 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: 'Query department master data' specifies the verb (query) and resource (department master data). It distinguishes from siblings like query_products and query_transactions by focusing on departments. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_schema or execute_sql, which might also query data, so it's not a perfect 5.
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 to choose query_departments over execute_sql for department queries, or how it relates to siblings like get_schema. There's no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with minimal direction.
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 mentions search functionality but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (format, pagination), performance characteristics, or any limitations. The description is functional but lacks transparency about how the tool behaves beyond basic search.
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 - just two sentences that efficiently communicate the core functionality and search parameters. Every word earns its place with no wasted text. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with specific search capabilities.
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 query tool with 8 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does. However, it lacks important context about result format, limitations, or how this fits within the broader tool ecosystem. The description is complete enough to understand the tool's function but not complete enough for optimal agent usage.
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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing search criteria (product code, name, department, price range, tags) which aligns with some parameters, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This 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 as 'Query product master data' with specific search criteria (product code, name, department, price range, tags), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'query_departments' or 'query_transactions' in terms of data domain, 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 like 'top_products' or 'execute_sql'. It lists search criteria but doesn't indicate whether this is the primary product search tool or if there are specific scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate. No exclusions or prerequisites 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 carries full burden. It states what the tool returns but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), performance characteristics, error conditions, authentication needs, or format of returned information.
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 ('Get the database schema information') and adds specific details ('including table structures and column definitions') without any wasted words.
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 0-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what format the schema information is returned in, whether it's comprehensive or filtered, or how it relates to the database context implied by sibling tools.
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?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since there are none, and the schema already fully documents the empty input structure.
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 with specific verbs ('Get') and resources ('database schema information including table structures and column definitions'). It distinguishes from siblings like execute_sql (which executes queries) or query_* tools (which query specific data), but doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions.
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, timing considerations, or compare it to sibling tools like execute_sql for schema exploration versus data querying.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by warning 'Use with caution' and recommending read-only queries, which hints at potential risks like data modification or performance issues. However, it doesn't detail specific behaviors such as permissions required, rate limits, or what happens with non-read-only queries, leaving gaps 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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences that directly address the tool's function and a key caution. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 complexity (executing arbitrary SQL queries) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and a caution but lacks details on return values, error handling, or security implications, which are crucial for such a powerful tool. It's adequate but has clear 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents both parameters ('query' and 'params') thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints on query syntax. Thus, it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.
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 with a specific verb ('execute') and resource ('custom SQL query on the database'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_schema' or 'query_transactions', which might also involve database queries, so it falls short of 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some guidance with 'Use with caution' and 'Read-only queries recommended', which implies cautionary context but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'query_departments' or 'sales_summary'. It lacks explicit when/when-not rules or named alternatives, leaving usage somewhat ambiguous.
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:

[![bakery_data_mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/t2hnd/bakery_data_mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/t2hnd/bakery_data_mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![bakery_data_mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/t2hnd/bakery_data_mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/t2hnd/bakery_data_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/t2hnd/bakery_data_mcp'

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