Skip to main content
Glama
tiennt235

moe-mcp

by tiennt235
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool serves a distinct purpose: asking questions, fetching source metadata, and listing experts. There is no functional overlap among the three.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (ask_experts, get_source, list_experts), making them predictable and easy to understand.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools is well-scoped for the server's domain of expert QA. Each tool is necessary and there are no extraneous or missing core functions.

    Completeness4/5

    The set covers the main workflow: querying experts, verifying sources, and discovering available experts. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to get detailed expert profiles, but it's not essential for typical use.

  • Average 3.8/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 10 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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention any side effects, authentication, or other behavioral traits.

    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?

    Single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, though it could be more informative without becoming verbose.

    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?

    Despite low complexity, the description lacks parameter explanation and behavioral details, making it incomplete for confident usage.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters1/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the source_id parameter at all, leaving its meaning and usage entirely undocumented.

    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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('metadata about a cited source'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like ask_experts and list_experts.

    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?

    Provides clear context ('to expand or verify a citation') but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, though sibling differentiation is implied.

    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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly states it lists experts and their knowledge levels, but does not disclose any potential side effects, rate limits, or access restrictions. For a simple read-only operation, this is adequate 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?

    The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

    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 that there are no parameters and an output schema exists (as indicated by context signals), the description provides enough information for an agent to understand the tool's function. It could mention that it returns all experts or the output format, but the current description is sufficient for a simple listing tool.

    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?

    There are no parameters (0 parameters, schema coverage 100% via empty schema). The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets that.

    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 verb 'list' and the resource 'available domain experts', and specifies what information is provided ('how much each one knows'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'ask_experts' (which likely queries experts) and 'get_source' (which retrieves a source).

    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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ask_experts' or 'get_source'. The description implies it's for listing experts before asking, but does not provide direct usage context or exclusions.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Describes the process: routing, hybrid retrieval, reranking, and citation format. Mentions the 'synthesize' option for a grounded answer. No annotations provided, but the description covers the behavior adequately without contradicting any metadata.

    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?

    Well-structured with an introductory paragraph and a clear parameter list. No unnecessary fluff, but could be slightly more concise. The instruction to cite sources is important and placed appropriately.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness5/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides complete context: how the question is processed, what the output contains (passages with citations, optional synthesized answer), and how to use the result.

    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?

    All four parameters are explained with meaningful descriptions beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage). 'question' is clearly natural-language, 'top_k' has default, 'experts' explains optional forcing, 'synthesize' explains its effect.

    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?

    Clearly states the tool retrieves answers from domain experts using hybrid retrieval and reranking. Differentiates from siblings ('get_source' retrieves a specific source, 'list_experts' lists experts) by focusing on question answering with citations.

    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?

    Provides explicit usage instruction to cite sources, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use. Implicitly guides that questions should be natural-language and experts can be forced or auto-routed.

    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

moe MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

moe 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/tiennt235/moe'

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