Skip to main content
Glama
thesimonharms

aksara-mcp

by thesimonharms
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

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 opposite purposes: one converts from Aksara to Latin, the other from Latin to Aksara. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names follow a consistent 'direction_aksara' pattern using snake_case, making them predictable and easy to understand.

    Tool Count5/5

    With exactly 2 tools (one for each conversion direction), the server is perfectly scoped for its purpose—no more, no less.

    Completeness5/5

    The toolset covers the entire bidirectional conversion between Aksara Jawa and Latin script, with no missing operations for its defined domain.

  • Average 4.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 2 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 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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions optional space preservation and explicit vowels, which adds behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., unsupported characters, error handling) or the exact output format beyond being Aksara Jawa.

    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: one sentence stating the core function and a second sentence listing the optional features. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main action.

    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 conversion tool, the description covers the basics but lacks information about return value format, error conditions, or handling of invalid input. Given no output schema and no annotations, more detail would be helpful for reliable usage.

    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?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the two boolean parameters ('space preservation' and 'explicit standalone vowel letters') in context, helping the agent understand their effect beyond the schema's dry descriptions.

    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?

    Description clearly states the tool converts Latin-script Javanese text to Aksara Jawa (Hanacaraka script). It specifies the exact resource and action, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'from_aksara' which does the reverse.

    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?

    Usage is implied by the description: use this tool to transliterate to Aksara Jawa. The sibling 'from_aksara' provides the alternative for the reverse direction. No explicit when-not or prerequisites, but the context is straightforward.

    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 are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the conversion and special cases handled, but does not disclose error handling, input validation, or side effects. For a conversion tool, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

    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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant information. Every word adds value.

    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 simple input schema (one string parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: it explains the transformation and lists supported script features. It does not discuss return format or edge cases, but overall is complete enough for a straightforward conversion.

    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?

    Schema description coverage is 100% (parameter 'text' described as 'Aksara Jawa text to decode to Latin script'). The description adds value beyond the schema by listing specific script features handled, enhancing the agent's understanding of valid inputs.

    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 converts Aksara Jawa to Latin-script Javanese, specifying the input and output scripts. It lists specific features handled (murda, retroflex, cakra, etc.), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'to_aksara' which performs the reverse operation.

    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 when to use this tool (to decode Aksara Jawa to Latin) and the sibling tool name provides context, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives. The purpose is clear enough for correct selection.

    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

aksara-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

aksara-mcp 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/thesimonharms/aksara-mcp'

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