cbr-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.2.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes: key rate, daily rates, single currency rate, dynamics, history, metals, and conversion. The only mild overlap is between get_daily_rates and get_currency_rate, but one returns all currencies and the other a specific currency with daily change. get_key_rate and get_key_rate_history are also distinguishable by current vs historical scope.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools use a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern with get_ as the dominant verb. convert_currency breaks the get_ prefix but still follows the same verb_noun convention, so the naming is predictable and coherent.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools is well-scoped for a Central Bank of Russia rates server. Each tool covers a meaningful aspect of the domain without unnecessary proliferation or obvious redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The surface covers current and historical key rates, daily and specific currency rates, rate dynamics, metals prices, and currency conversion. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit supported-currency list or a dedicated historical conversion endpoint, but these can be worked around with the existing daily rates and dynamics tools.
Average 3.5/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on June 23, 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

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 does state that the result includes the ruble rate and the day's change, but it does not disclose the return structure, default date behavior, error handling, or any permission/read-only details. This leaves the behavior under-specified.
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 compact sentence with no redundant wording. It states the core purpose and the additional daily-change detail without wasting tokens.
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?
The tool is simple and the schema covers the parameters, but there is no output schema, no annotations, and no explanation of return values or edge cases. The description gives the basic rate-and-change concept, but an agent is left without enough context for confident usage or selection among closely related siblings.
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 already documents both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds the useful clarification that the rate is against the ruble, but it does not add meaningful details about the date format or currency code beyond what the schema already provides.
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 resource: the rate of a specific currency against the ruble, and adds the 'change over the day' detail. It distinguishes itself implicitly from siblings like get_daily_rates and get_rate_dynamics, but it does not explicitly name any alternative.
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 for when to use this tool instead of sibling tools such as get_daily_rates, get_rate_dynamics, or convert_currency. The phrase 'конкретной валюты' implies single-currency use, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
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?
The text conveys the core behavior: retrieving a historical series of key-rate changes over a date period, which weakly implies a read-only operation. However, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not disclose the return shape, ordering, inclusion of only change events, or any other side-effect/constraint details.
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, tight sentence with no filler and the key resource is front-loaded. It could have included sibling differentiation or output details while still remaining concise, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
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 read tool with two optional, fully documented parameters, the description provides the minimal core semantics. But since there is no output schema and no annotations, and the sibling get_rate_dynamics could plausibly overlap, the description is only minimally complete for correct 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already explains both from_date and to_date with defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the generic 'за период', so it does not raise the score.
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 resource (the Central Bank of Russia key rate) and the scope ('за период' – over a period), while 'История изменений' conveys that it returns historical changes. This distinguishes it from current-rate and currency-related siblings, but it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'gets', so it stops short of a 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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_key_rate or get_rate_dynamics. 'За период' only implies temporal filtering; it does not state exclusions, alternatives, or conditions under which another tool should be chosen.
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 available, the description carries the full burden. It communicates that the tool provides prices for four specific metals in rubles per gram, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only retrieval, how the optional date affects results, or what happens when no date is supplied.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the key facts: source, metals, and units. There is no redundant or filler content.
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?
For a simple read-only lookup with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It names the exact resources and units, while the schema covers the date format and default. It could be more complete by stating that all four metals are returned together and that the latest available date is used when date is omitted.
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%, and the date parameter already has a clear format and default-behavior description. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 identifies the resource: official CBR accounting prices for gold, silver, platinum, and palladium in rubles per gram. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource construction, but the scope is unambiguous and distinct from currency-rate sibling 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?
No usage guidance is provided: the description does not say when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_daily_rates or get_currency_rate, nor does it mention alternatives. The intended use case is only implicitly inferable from the resource name and metal list.
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the output shape: a series plus min/max/avg summary and change. However, it does not mention ordering, inclusivity of dates, supported currency codes, error behavior, or whether the operation has any side effects, so transparency is partial.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the main purpose and appends useful output details in parentheses. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema information.
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 there is no output schema, the description usefully specifies what the response will contain: a value series and a summary with min/max/avg and change. Combined with fully documented parameters, this is mostly sufficient for an agent to call the tool and interpret results, though minor gaps remain around ordering and date boundary semantics.
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%: all three parameters (currency_code, from_date, to_date) are documented with formats and examples. The description adds little beyond clarifying that the rate is 'to the ruble', so it does not materially enhance parameter understanding 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 identifies the tool's function: returning currency exchange rate dynamics to the ruble over a period, including a value series and summary statistics. It is specific about the resource (currency rate) and scope (period), though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling period-based tools like get_daily_rates or get_key_rate_history.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'За период' implies historical period use, but the description does not state conditions, exclusions, or which sibling tool should be preferred for other scenarios, leaving the choice largely to inference.
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?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the returned data (current key rate and effective date), but does not address response format, update frequency, or other operational behavior. For a simple zero-parameter read tool, this is acceptable but not rich.
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?
One short sentence with no filler. The core subject ('current key rate') is front-loaded, and the effective-date detail adds necessary clarity without unnecessary length.
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?
For a no-parameter, no-output-schema lookup, the description names both output components, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. It lacks usage and alternative routing, but that gap is reflected in the usage dimension; within its simple scope, nothing essential is missing.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The empty properties object and 100% schema coverage mean no further parameter explanation is needed.
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 states exactly what is returned: the current CBR key rate and its effective date. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_key_rate_history or get_daily_rates, though it omits an explicit verb such as 'returns'.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_key_rate_history or get_daily_rates. The word 'current' implies it is for the latest rate, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative routing is 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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully adds that no authorization is required and that the default date is today, but it does not describe the response format, error behavior, or handling of non-working dates.
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 one short, front-loaded sentence covering the essential facts: scope, date default, and authentication requirement. There is no filler or redundant detail.
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?
For a one-parameter, public data-retrieval tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the returned data, the main input, and the auth behavior. A more detailed description of the response payload would help, but it is not necessary for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.
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 only parameter, date, is already fully described in the schema with its pattern and default value. The description merely repeats the default and adds no new semantic information, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a concrete resource — all Central Bank of Russia currency rates for a given date — and the word 'Все' (all) marks its scope, distinguishing it from single-rate siblings like get_currency_rate. It is not a tautology or vague restatement of the tool name.
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 makes it clear the tool is for getting the full daily rate table, but it never explicitly says when to choose this over sibling tools such as get_currency_rate or get_key_rate. The appropriate use case is implied by 'Все' rather than stated outright.
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, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose that conversion uses the CBR exchange rate. However, it does not mention date handling, default currencies, or limitations such as unsupported currency codes, relying on the schema for those details.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the core action and rate source with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
For a simple conversion tool with fully documented parameters, the description is nearly complete: it states the conversion, the source rate, and the currencies. It could mention the return value, but that is strongly implied by the conversion action.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds little to parameter meaning beyond saying that an amount is converted between currencies, but this is not needed because the schema already documents all four parameters.
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 names a specific operation (converting an amount), a resource (currency amounts), and the rate source (CBR RF). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling rate-retrieval tools like get_currency_rate and get_daily_rates.
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 clearly implies use for currency conversion rather than rate lookup, so an agent can select it over siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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