OVB3 Bridge

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: repo listing, artifact CRUD, git operations, build/audit, and VBCS/VB Studio REST calls are all clearly separated. Even similarly named tools like list_apps and vbcs_list_applications are distinguished by their local vs remote scope.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (list_repos, read_artifact, run_build), and the git_*, vbcs_*, and vbstudio_* prefixes provide meaningful grouping. However, git_* tools use a noun_verb style (git_status, git_commit) that deviates from the primary pattern, slightly reducing overall consistency.
Tool Count4/5
At 19 tools, the server is slightly above the typical 3-15 well-scoped range, but the breadth covers local repo management, build tooling, and two distinct remote APIs. The three [NOT IMPLEMENTED] tools add to the count without contributing functionality, but the overall scope justifies the number.
Completeness3/5
The core bridge workflows are covered: get local repo status, commit/pull/push, read/write artifacts, build, and interact with standalone VBCS apps. However, the VB Studio integration is entirely unimplemented, and there are no artifact delete/update operations or BO data mutation, leaving notable gaps for a comprehensive bridge.
Average 3.4/5 across 19 of 19 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 12, 2026
- 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

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Pull from the repo's remote' fails to mention that a pull fetches and merges changes, may cause merge conflicts, or modifies the local working directory—critical side effects for an agent to anticipate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single simple sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative, omitting essential operational details while saying very little.
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 has three optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't address parameter usage, return values, or failure modes, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke the tool confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, and the tool description adds little meaning for the branch and remote parameters beyond what their names imply. It doesn't explain defaults, behavior, or how they interact with the pull operation, so it fails to compensate for the schema's gaps.
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 uses the specific verb 'pull' and identifies the target as 'the repo's remote,' clearly conveying the core operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from git_clone or describe the effect on the current branch, so it stops short of full 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 about when to use git_pull versus alternatives like git_clone or git_status. It doesn't mention typical scenarios (e.g., updating a checkout) or prerequisites such as having a configured remote or clean working tree.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining possible side effects, failure conditions, authentication requirements, or whether it modifies the remote state. The description is purely a verb phrase with no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified for a tool with three parameters and no annotations. It is appropriately concise but lacks necessary detail, making it merely adequate rather than exemplary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
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, no annotations, no output schema), the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain what happens on push (e.g., whether it pushes current branch vs other branches), return values, error scenarios, or any integration with sibling Git tools. The description is too minimal to support safe and correct use.
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?
The description adds no information about the three parameters (repo, branch, remote). The schema covers only 'repo' with a description; 'branch' and 'remote' are left completely undocumented. The tool description does not compensate for this low schema coverage, leaving agents without guidance on how to correctly fill parameters.
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 'Push to the repo's remote' uses a specific verb ('push') and identifies the resource ('repo's remote'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling Git tools like git_commit (commit locally) and git_pull (pull from remote). It is immediately clear what operation this tool performs.
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 such as git_commit or git_pull. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., having commited changes, needing to push a specific branch) or when not to use it. The usage context is only implied by the verb 'push'.
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 exist, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and status; it does not disclose authentication requirements, side effects, error behavior, or response format. The 'Blocked' note provides some operational status, but overall transparency is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence, efficient and front-loaded with the '[NOT IMPLEMENTED]' warning. However, it is under-specified to the point of being terse, though conciseness itself is not the primary issue.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter details, the description is not complete enough to guide correct invocation. It does not explain how to obtain required values (e.g., environment format, projectKey) or what a successful response looks like. The 'NOT IMPLEMENTED' status lowers urgency, but the definition still lacks essential context.
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 has 0% description coverage for the three required parameters (appName, projectKey, environment). The description does not mention or explain any parameter, leaving the agent with only the parameter names for semantic inference.
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?
Description states a specific action: 'Trigger a deploy via the VB Studio REST API.' This distinguishes it from sibling vbstudio_trigger_build by specifying the 'deploy' resource. However, the '[NOT IMPLEMENTED]' prefix undermines clarity by indicating it is not yet operational.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vbstudio_trigger_build. The only usage hint is 'Blocked until a live dev instance is confirmed,' which implies it should not be used yet, but no alternative or selection criteria is provided.
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?
There are no annotations to fall back on, and the description only repeats the action of exporting without disclosing behavioral traits. It does not explain what the export output looks like, whether it is a downloadable file or an array of data, or any side effects or permissions needed. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy or filler. It effectively communicates the core action. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices valuable details, making it not quite a 5.
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?
With 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It does not mention return values, prerequisites, or any operational constraints. The information provided is minimal and leaves many gaps that would require additional investigation or assumptions.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the three required parameters (boName, appName, appVersion). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning or context, leaving the agent to guess how to fill them correctly.
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 tool's function with a specific verb 'Export' and a specific resource 'a business object's data records', and it also specifies the context 'from a standalone VBCS instance'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_apps or vbcs_list_applications, which are about listing, not exporting data.
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 does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools such as read_artifact or vbcs_list_applications. The only contextual hint is 'standalone VBCS instance', but this is not developed into actionable usage guidance.
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?
The description discloses that the tool is not implemented and is blocked, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not describe what happens if the tool is called (error, no-op, etc.) or any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. With no annotations, this is a significant gap.
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 two short sentences with the NOT IMPLEMENTED marker front-loaded, making it easy to scan. Every word serves a purpose, though it is minimal.
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?
For a tool that is not implemented, the description adequately signals that it should not be used. However, it provides no information about the build trigger behavior, parameter meanings, or relation to other tools, leaving it incomplete for when it becomes available.
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?
The schema has zero description coverage, and the description mentions none of the three parameters (appName, projectKey, environment). The agent has no context for what values these should take, making parameter semantics effectively nonexistent.
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 triggers a CI/CD build via the VB Studio REST API, which is a specific action and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tool run_build or vbstudio_trigger_deploy, so it's clear but not fully distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides an explicit condition: 'Blocked until a live dev instance is confirmed.' This tells the agent not to use the tool currently, which is a when-not instruction. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this instead of alternatives like run_build or vbstudio_trigger_deploy.
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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation but does not disclose that the commit is local and not pushed, what happens to staged files, or whether authentication is needed. Side effects and response behavior are absent.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is appropriately concise, but it lacks any auxiliary context that would make it more informative without becoming bloated, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
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?
For a mutating git tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain that the commit is local, does not mention return values, and does not relate to sibling git workflow tools like git_status or git_push, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke safely in context.
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 already documents repo and files with helpful descriptions, covering 67% of parameters. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but it does not contradict the schema. Message is left with only its name/type, so the description does not compensate, but schema coverage is sufficient for a baseline 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 'Stage and commit changes in a repo checkout.' clearly identifies the action and target. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like git_status or git_pull, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or edge cases, so it stops short of a top 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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as git_status, git_push, or git_clone. The description does not include prerequisites (e.g., existing checkout, clean status) or workflow context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.
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, the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or impact on other users. The behavior of locking is left entirely to inference.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple action and every word adds value.
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?
The tool is simple (one param, no output schema), but the description is too minimal to be complete. It fails to explain what locking actually does, whether it is reversible, or what happens if the application is already locked. More context is needed for safe and correct use.
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?
The schema has one parameter, branchId, with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not mention branchId at all. The agent receives no explanation of what branchId represents or how it affects the locking operation.
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 tool locks a live application on a standalone VBCS instance, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like vbcs_unlock_application and vbcs_list_applications.
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 such as vbcs_unlock_application. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical workflows, or scenarios where locking is appropriate.
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?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'unlock a live application,' implying a state transition, but does not explain permissions, reversibility, side effects on other users, or what happens if the application is already unlocked. This is a mutation operation with no safety or consequence information.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse, making it an appropriate size for the tool's apparent simplicity.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description is not sufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool. It lacks essential context about branchId, prerequisites, and postconditions. The one-liner tells what the tool does but not how to use it correctly.
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?
The schema defines one required parameter, branchId, with no description (0% schema coverage). The description does not mention branchId at all, leaving the agent without any hint about what value to provide or how it relates to unlocking. This is a serious gap for correct invocation.
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?
Description uses a specific verb 'unlock' and clearly identifies the resource: 'a live application on a standalone VBCS instance.' This distinguishes it from the sibling vbcs_lock_application and other VBCS tools. The core action is immediately understandable.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like vbcs_lock_application. It neither states prerequisites (e.g., the application must currently be locked) nor excludes cases. The intended context is only implied by the tool's name and one-line description.
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 the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but no further behavioral traits are disclosed (e.g., recursion behavior, error handling, output format). This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation support.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. It conveys the core purpose and an example without wasting words.
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?
For a simple listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not state what the returned artifact list looks like or how repo is resolved without a schema-derived understanding. The example helps, but edge cases are unaddressed.
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 schema documents repo but not pattern (50% coverage). The description adds meaning to pattern by explaining it as a glob and giving an example, which partially compensates. It also ties both parameters together in context, but does not fully explain repo resolution beyond what the schema already states.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('artifact files') with scope ('in a repo matching a glob pattern') and provides a concrete example pattern. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_repos and list_apps.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use case is implied: use when you need to list artifact files matching a glob pattern. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or exclusions, and no alternatives are mentioned. The schema hints at using list_repos for repo discovery, but that guidance is not in the description.
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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that output streams live to server logs, which is helpful, but it does not disclose whether the tool modifies anything, requires permissions, or has other side effects.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. No redundant information is present.
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?
The tool is simple with optional params and no output schema. The description explains the action and where output goes, but it omits details about return values, prerequisites, or post-completion behavior. It is adequate but not thorough.
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?
Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 applies.
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 tool's action with a specific verb and resource: 'Run grunt-vb-audit for a VBCS app.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_build and vbstudio_trigger_build, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by naming the audit tool, but does not explicitly explain when to use it versus alternatives. It references helper tools like list_repos in the parameter descriptions but provides no direct guidance or exclusion criteria.
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, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait (refusing invalid JSON for .json paths) but does not mention whether it overwrites existing files, creates directories, or has any side effects. This is minimal transparency for a mutation 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value.
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?
The description covers the core purpose and adds one behavioral constraint, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, important context is missing (e.g., overwrite behavior, side effects, prerequisites). It is adequate but not complete.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides; it only reiterates the action and adds the JSON validation rule, which is not parameter-level.
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 tool writes a VBCS artifact file by repo-relative path, with a specific verb and resource. It also adds a distinguishing behavioral note about refusing invalid JSON, which differentiates it from read/list operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the name and description (write vs. read/list), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over git-based file editing or other sibling tools. The description does not mention alternatives or exclusions.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'show' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't explicitly disclose safety characteristics or any behavioral caveats such as whether it contacts the remote.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and subject, with zero waste.
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?
For a simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description is adequately complete. The schema covers parameter semantics, and the description states the purpose without needing elaborate context. It lacks the richer guidance of examples like get_calls, hence a 4.
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 provides complete descriptions for the 'repo' parameter, including resolution semantics and a pointer to list_repos. The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 'show' and resource 'git status' for a 'repo checkout', clearly distinguishing it from sibling git tools like git_commit, git_pull, and git_clone.
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 vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that it's useful for inspecting state before committing, nor does it explain any exclusions or related tools.
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?
The description discloses that output is streamed live to server logs, which is a useful behavioral trait, especially given no annotations are provided. It does not cover potential side effects such as repository modifications, permission requirements, or failure behaviors, but the core streaming behavior is stated.
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 two concise sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and adding a valuable behavioral note about live streaming. There is no redundant information or unnecessary length.
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?
The tool is simple with two optional params, and the description covers the core action and output streaming. However, with no output schema, it does not explain what the tool returns on success/failure, and it does not differentiate from vbstudio_trigger_build in the sibling context, leaving some ambiguity.
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 provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, explaining defaults and how to find valid values via list_repos and list_apps. The main description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific action: 'Run grunt-vb-build for a VBCS app.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling build tools like vbstudio_trigger_build and run_audit by naming the exact build command and target.
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 implies usage for building VBCS apps, and the parameter descriptions in the schema provide workflow guidance by referencing list_repos and list_apps to discover valid values. However, it does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over alternatives like vbstudio_trigger_build, nor does it state any exclusions.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (cloning into VBS_WORKSPACE_DIR) and the side effect (discoverability by list_repos), but it does not address potential overwriting, failure modes, authentication requirements, or what happens if destName already exists.
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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and destination, then adds the purpose and usage context, making every word deliver value.
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 simplicity of a clone operation with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, destination, and integration with list_repos. It could mention error handling or prerequisites (e.g., network, credentials), but the essential context is present.
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 for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides, only reaffirming the destination directory.
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 action ('Clone a git remote'), the target resource (git remote), and the destination (VBS_WORKSPACE_DIR), while also distinguishing it from siblings like git_pull and list_repos by noting its role in making repos discoverable via list_repos.
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 clear context for when this tool is used (to clone a remote into the workspace for discovery by list_repos, specifically in /link's VBS setup flow), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for related operations like updating an existing repo.
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. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the description specifies the output format 'webApps/<name>', but it does not explicitly state that it does not modify anything or surface potential side effects. This is adequate but minimal.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no filler, repetition, or unnecessary details, making it highly efficient.
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?
This is a simple list tool with one optional parameter, and the description covers the core purpose and the output format 'webApps/<name>'. The schema handles parameter details, and no output schema exists, so the description adequately explains what to expect. It lacks mention of error cases or empty results, but that is not critical for this tool.
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 single parameter 'repo' is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. The schema already explains path resolution, defaults, and how to list available repos, so the description's omission of parameter details is acceptable.
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 states 'List VBCS web app names (webApps/<name>) present in a repo checkout', giving a specific verb (List), resource (VBCS web app names), and scope (repo checkout). The format 'webApps/<name>' distinguishes it from siblings like list_repos and list_artifacts.
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 implies the tool is for enumerating app names in a repo checkout, but it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives like vbcs_list_applications. However, the context of 'repo checkout' provides clear situational guidance for when this tool applies.
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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clarifies the operation is local and scoped to VBS_WORKSPACE_DIR, which is useful. However, it does not disclose edge cases such as behavior when the directory is missing, whether subdirectories are scanned recursively, or any filtering of hidden/ignored repos.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and scope without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple zero-parameter listing tool, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly states what is listed and where. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning what is not included (e.g., remote repos, non-checkout directories), but given the simplicity, the current description meets most needs.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description naturally adds no parameter-specific semantics because there are none to describe. This is appropriate.
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 'List' and a clear resource: 'local VB Studio project repo checkouts discoverable under VBS_WORKSPACE_DIR.' This distinguishes it from siblings like list_apps and vbstudio_list_projects by specifying the local filesystem scope and environment variable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing local repo checkouts, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like git_status or vbstudio_list_projects. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided, leaving context to inference.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'Read' implies a safe, read-only operation, but the description does not mention return format, error handling, or confirm no side effects. It is minimally transparent but not richly detailed.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It names the artifact types and the path-based access method. However, it could explicitly state that the tool returns the file content, an omission given no output schema is present. Still, the simplicity keeps it adequate.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema—merely restating that reading is by path. No additional meaning is provided for the 'path' or 'repo' parameters beyond what the schema already describes.
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 tool's function: 'Read a VBCS artifact file... by repo-relative path.' It specifies the resource type (artifact file) and lists examples (page/flow/chain/service JSON), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_artifacts and write_artifact.
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 implies clear usage: when you need to read a specific artifact's content given its repo-relative path. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is straightforward for a read operation, earning a 4 rather than a 3.
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 burden. It indicates a read-only list operation ('List') and mentions the REST API with VBCS_BASE_URL, providing a prerequisite context. However, it does not disclose behavior such as pagination, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling, which could matter in practice.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. The second sentence adds a critical scope qualifier without any fluff.
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?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the use case and key constraint. It mentions the REST API and VBCS_BASE_URL, and the standalone vs. git-backed distinction. It doesn't explain return format, but that's not required given the tool's simplicity.
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 schema covers 100% of the parameter (filter) with its own description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any extra meaning about how to use the filter parameter, deferring entirely to the 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 the tool lists applications on a standalone VBCS instance via its REST API, specifying both the resource and the method. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_apps and list_repos by clarifying the scope: 'standalone VBCS instance' and 'not backed by a VB Studio git repo.'
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 gives clear context: use this for standalone VBCS instances, and explicitly states it is for apps NOT backed by a VB Studio git repo, implying alternatives exist. While it doesn't name the sibling tool (list_apps) directly, the exclusion is strong enough to guide selection.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. The [NOT IMPLEMENTED] status and 'Blocked' qualifier are critical behavioral traits that prevent an agent from making a doomed call. It doesn't describe return values or error behavior, but the non-functional status is the most important disclosure.
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 sentence with the status flag front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose: what it lists, where, and its current limitation. No redundancy or filler.
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?
For a stub tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: the intended operation, the blocking status, and the condition for unblocking. It lacks return format details, but since the tool is not yet usable, that's acceptable.
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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter detail to add. The baseline of 4 applies because the description doesn't omit any parameter information; there simply isn't any.
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 action (list) and resource (VB Studio projects) with context ('on the instance'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_repos and vbcs_list_applications by the specific 'VB Studio projects' resource. The [NOT IMPLEMENTED] flag doesn't obscure the intended purpose.
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 'Blocked until a live dev instance is confirmed' provides explicit when-not guidance, telling the agent not to invoke the tool yet. It implies it should be used once the instance is available, but no alternative tools are mentioned, so it stops short of a full 5.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![ovb3-bridge MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vanamthrishul/ovb3-bridge/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vanamthrishul/ovb3-bridge)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ovb3-bridge MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vanamthrishul/ovb3-bridge/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vanamthrishul/ovb3-bridge)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/vanamthrishul/ovb3-bridge'

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