Skip to main content
Glama
ucalyptus

Prem MCP Server

by ucalyptus
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

42%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation3/5

    The tools have some overlap but are distinguishable by their specific functions. 'chat' and 'prem_chat_with_template' both handle chat completions, which could cause confusion, but 'prem_chat_with_template' specifies template usage, and 'prem_upload_document' is clearly distinct for document uploads. The descriptions help differentiate them, but the chat-focused tools have ambiguous boundaries.

    Naming Consistency2/5

    The naming is inconsistent with mixed conventions. 'chat' uses a simple verb, 'prem_chat_with_template' uses a verbose prefix and underscores, and 'prem_upload_document' follows a similar pattern but differs in structure. There is no uniform verb_noun pattern, and the prefix 'prem_' is applied inconsistently, leading to a chaotic naming style.

    Tool Count3/5

    With 3 tools, the count is borderline for a server's scope. It feels thin, potentially lacking operations like document retrieval or template management, but it covers basic chat and document upload functionalities. For a Prem AI server, more tools might be expected to handle a complete workflow, making this slightly under-scoped.

    Completeness2/5

    There are significant gaps in the tool surface for a Prem AI domain. The tools cover chat completions and document upload but lack operations for retrieving documents, managing templates, or performing other AI tasks like embeddings or fine-tuning. This incomplete coverage will likely cause agent failures when trying to execute common workflows.

  • Average 2.9/5 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
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • 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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'chat completions with optional RAG capabilities' but doesn't describe key behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or error handling. For a chat tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

    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 and front-loaded: a single sentence that captures the core functionality. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. The structure efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without wasting space.

    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 (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, usage context, or output expectations. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to provide the additional context needed for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool effectively, especially compared to 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?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional RAG capabilities', which loosely relates to parameters like repository_ids, similarity_threshold, and limit. However, it doesn't provide additional semantic context or usage examples beyond what's in the parameter descriptions.

    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: 'Chat with Prem AI - supports chat completions with optional RAG capabilities.' It specifies the verb ('Chat with'), resource ('Prem AI'), and key capabilities (chat completions with optional RAG). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'prem_chat_with_template' beyond mentioning RAG capabilities.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'prem_chat_with_template' or 'prem_upload_document'. It mentions optional RAG capabilities but doesn't specify scenarios where RAG is beneficial or when to choose this tool over siblings. No explicit when/when-not statements or alternative recommendations are included.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Chat') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or potential side effects. For a tool with multiple parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

    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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, 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 (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

    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 all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying template-based chat, which is already covered by the schema's parameter descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

    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 verb ('Chat') and resource ('using a predefined Prem AI prompt template'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'chat' or 'prem_upload_document', which would require more specific language about template-based versus direct chat functionality.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'chat' or 'prem_upload_document', nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a pre-existing template or appropriate parameters. This leaves the agent without clear usage context.

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

  • Behavior2/5

    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 'Upload' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, file size limits, supported formats, error handling, or what happens on success. This leaves significant gaps for an upload tool.

    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 waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded for an upload operation.

    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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool (upload), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on permissions, return values, error cases, or operational limits, which are critical for safe and effective use.

    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 already documents both parameters (repository_id, file_path). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

    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 ('Upload') and target resource ('document to a Prem AI repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools (chat, prem_chat_with_template), which are unrelated communication tools, so it doesn't need explicit sibling differentiation.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without context about appropriate scenarios or constraints.

    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

prem-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

prem-mcp-server 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/ucalyptus/prem-mcp-server'

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