Skip to main content
Glama
uzerone

ParticlePhysics MCP Server

by uzerone
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
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 distinct purposes: one lists decay modes for a specific particle, while the other searches for particles in a database. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to choose the correct tool based on the task.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern (list_decays and search_particle), using snake_case throughout. This predictability aids in understanding and usage without any deviations.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a particle physics domain, which typically involves complex queries, simulations, or analyses. This limited set may not support comprehensive agent workflows, suggesting an under-scoped implementation.

    Completeness2/5

    The toolset is severely incomplete for particle physics, lacking essential operations like retrieving particle properties, calculating cross-sections, or simulating interactions. Agents will face significant gaps, as basic CRUD or lifecycle coverage is missing.

  • Average 3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • 1 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 3 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool searches a database, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, result format, pagination, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a database query 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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a search tool. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., result format, limits) and doesn't compensate for the absence of structured data, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable 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?

    The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'query' parameter documented as 'Search query (particle name, symbol, or property)'. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only reiterating 'by name or properties'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 ('Search for particles') and resource ('in the PDG database'), with specificity about search criteria ('by name or properties'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_decays', which appears to be a different operation, but the purpose is well-defined.

    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 or in what context. It mentions searching 'in the PDG database', but doesn't specify prerequisites, limitations, or how it relates to the sibling tool 'list_decays'.

    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 but doesn't describe traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error handling for invalid particles, or the format of the returned decay modes. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely queries a dataset.

    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 any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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.

    Completeness3/5

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

    Given the tool has one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context about behavioral aspects and usage guidelines. For a simple query tool, it's passable, but the absence of annotations and output details means it doesn't fully equip the agent for optimal 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?

    The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'particle_id' documented as 'Particle identifier (PDG ID or name)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 verb 'list' and the resource 'decay modes for a specific particle', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_particle', which might also involve particle-related queries, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

    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 the sibling 'search_particle' or any other alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the particle must exist in a database, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

    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

ParticlePhysics-MCP-Server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

ParticlePhysics-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/uzerone/ParticlePhysics-MCP-Server'

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