Skip to main content
Glama
tripcher

mcp-canon

by tripcher
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.2.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: read_full_guide retrieves full guide content, search_best_practices performs semantic search within guides, and search_suitable_guides finds guides matching a task. No overlap in functionality.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: read_full_guide, search_best_practices, search_suitable_guides. The naming is predictable and clear.

    Tool Count4/5

    With only 3 tools, the server feels slightly minimal but still covers core operations for a guide and best-practices domain. It's reasonable for a focused server.

    Completeness2/5

    Significant gaps exist: there is no tool to list all available guides, and the read_full_guide tool truncates large guides while referencing a missing 'consult_guide_for_task' tool. This creates dead ends for agents.

  • Average 4.7/5 across 3 of 3 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
    • Last stable release on
    • 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

  • Behavior4/5

    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 discloses the return format ('Top 3 matching guides with descriptions') and implies a read-only operation. Additional behavioral details like rate limits or data freshness are missing but not critical for a search tool.

    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 well-structured with bullet points and clear sections, front-loading the purpose. It is concise, though the 'IMPORTANT' note adds essential context without being verbose.

    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?

    With an output schema existing (as indicated), the description need not detail return values. It sufficiently covers the two parameters, usage context, and distinguishes from siblings. The tool's behavior is adequately described for a search operation.

    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 0%, meaning the schema properties lack descriptions. The description's 'Args:' section compensates by explaining 'query' and 'namespace', adding necessary meaning beyond the bare schema.

    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 'Find guides that match a task description', using a specific verb ('find') and resource ('guides'). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning 'guide-level results, not chunk-level', differentiating from potential chunk-level searches.

    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 provides explicit 'Use this tool when' scenarios and an important instruction to formulate queries in English. However, it does not directly compare with sibling tools or explicitly state when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity.

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

  • Behavior5/5

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

    No annotations provided, but the description thoroughly explains behavior: semantic search, result count differences based on guide_id, namespace filtering, and return type. No contradictions.

    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?

    Well-organized with bullet points and sections. Every sentence adds value; no redundant or filler content.

    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?

    Given the tool's complexity (3 params, search function) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, when to use, parameter details, behavioral nuances.

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

    Parameters5/5

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

    Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter's type, constraints, and effect on results (e.g., guide_id top 3 vs top 5, namespace ignored if guide_id set).

    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 'Semantic search for best practices across all guides or within a specific guide' using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on best practices search.

    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?

    Explicitly lists three 'Use this tool when' scenarios and a language guideline. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly compare to alternative siblings.

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

  • Behavior5/5

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

    No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly discloses truncation behavior for large guides (>20k chars) and what is returned (full content or table of contents if truncated). No contradictions.

    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?

    Description is compact (8 lines) yet covers use cases, warnings, arguments, and returns. Structured with clear headings (Use this tool when:, Warning:, Args:, Returns:) making it easy to scan.

    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?

    Given one simple parameter and an output schema (implied), the description covers key behavioral aspects (truncation, return format). It is complete enough 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.

    Parameters5/5

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

    Schema coverage is 0% for descriptions, but the description adds meaning for the sole parameter 'guide_id' with an example ('python/fastapi-production'), which provides clear guidance beyond the schema's type definition.

    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 'Get the complete content of a guide.' Verb+resource is specific. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like search_best_practices, the purpose is unambiguous and distinct from search functionality.

    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?

    Explicitly lists when to use (full context, short guide, implementing from scratch) and when not to (large guides, use consult_guide_for_task for sections). Provides clear context and alternatives.

    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

canon MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

canon 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/tripcher/canon'

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