Skip to main content
Glama
tpavelek

MCP-Hub-MCP Server

by tpavelek
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 completely distinct purposes with no overlap: one is for calling specific tools from servers, while the other is for listing all available tools. An agent can easily tell them apart as they serve different functions in the tool management workflow.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    The tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (call-tool, list-all-tools) with clear actions and objects. The hyphenated style is used consistently, though 'list-all-tools' includes a modifier ('all') which is a minor deviation from a pure verb_noun structure.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for its apparent purpose of managing MCP tools across servers. While it covers basic operations (call and list), more comprehensive tool management (e.g., discover servers, configure connections) is missing, making the scope underdeveloped.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for managing an MCP hub. It lacks essential operations such as discovering or connecting to servers, managing server configurations, or handling errors. The two tools provide only minimal functionality, leaving significant gaps that will hinder agent workflows.

  • Average 3.5/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.

    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 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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It lacks details on behavioral traits such as error handling, permissions needed, rate limits, or what happens when calling tools (e.g., side effects, response format). This is inadequate for a tool that interacts with other servers.

    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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, 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.

    Completeness2/5

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

    Given the tool's complexity (calling tools across servers with nested parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address critical context like how toolArgs should be structured, error cases, or what the call returns, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

    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 fully documents parameters (serverName, toolName, toolArgs). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints, but the high coverage justifies the baseline score of 3.

    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 ('Call') and target ('a specific tool from a specific server'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'list-all-tools', which serves a completely different purpose (listing vs. calling), so it misses full sibling distinction.

    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 merely states what it does without indicating context, prerequisites, or comparison to the sibling tool 'list-all-tools', leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

    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. It describes the tool's behavior as listing tools from all servers and suggests it should be used first in tasks, which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on potential limitations (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'all connected servers' entails), leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

    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 well-structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly more front-loaded by emphasizing the 'list' action first, but overall it's efficient and clear.

    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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, which suffices for this context. However, it lacks details on output format or behavioral constraints (e.g., whether it's idempotent or has side effects), preventing a perfect score.

    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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage. This meets the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters, as it avoids unnecessary details.

    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: 'List all available tools from all connected servers.' It specifies the verb ('list') and resource ('tools'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'call-tool' by focusing on enumeration rather than invocation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential other listing tools beyond the sibling, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines5/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description provides explicit usage guidelines: 'Before starting any task based on the user's request, always begin by using this tool to get a list of any additional tools that may be available for use.' It clearly states when to use it (at the start of tasks) and why (to discover additional tools), offering strong guidance without alternatives needed given the context.

    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

mcp-hub-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-hub-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/tpavelek/mcp-hub-mcp'

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