Skip to main content
Glama
vjouenne76

MCP Server Scaffold

by vjouenne76
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have completely distinct purposes: 'echo' handles message repetition while 'get_current_time' provides temporal information. There is no overlap in functionality, making it impossible to confuse them.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    The naming is mixed: 'echo' uses a simple verb form while 'get_current_time' follows a verb_noun pattern. Although both are readable, they lack a consistent convention, which could lead to unpredictability if more tools were added.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, this server feels thin for a 'scaffold' purpose, which typically implies a foundation for building more functionality. The count is too low to demonstrate meaningful coherence or coverage for most domains.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the vague 'scaffold' domain, it's hard to assess completeness, but the tools cover basic utility operations (echo and time). However, there are obvious gaps for a scaffold, such as file manipulation or configuration tools, limiting its usefulness as a foundation.

  • Average 3.2/5 across 2 of 2 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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic action ('Echo back') but lacks details on traits like whether it's read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description is insufficient to inform the agent about behavioral characteristics beyond the obvious output.

    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, consisting of a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence ('Echo back the provided message') earns its place by conveying essential information efficiently.

    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's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or output format. For such a simple tool, this might be sufficient, but it doesn't provide a complete picture for an agent to use it optimally without additional inference.

    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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'message' fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain format constraints or usage examples). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

    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 function ('Echo back') with the specific resource ('the provided message'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_current_time', but since they serve fundamentally different purposes (echoing input vs. retrieving time), the distinction is inherently clear without needing explicit comparison.

    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. While the sibling tool 'get_current_time' is unrelated in function, there's no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where 'echo' would be preferred over other potential tools (e.g., for testing or debugging). This leaves the agent without contextual usage direction.

    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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes the action ('Get') but lacks details such as timezone handling, format of the returned date/time, whether it's real-time or cached, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand 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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it highly efficient and easy to parse for an agent.

    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's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on the return format (e.g., ISO string, timestamp) and behavioral aspects like timezone, which are important for completeness even in simple tools.

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

    Parameters4/5

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

    The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, and it adds value by specifying what is retrieved ('current date and time'), which aligns well with the lack of inputs.

    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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current date and time'), making it immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from its sibling tool 'echo', but the purpose is unambiguous and not tautological with the name.

    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 'echo' or other time-related tools that might exist. It states what it does but offers no context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

mcp-server-scaffold MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-server-scaffold 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/vjouenne76/mcp-server-scaffold'

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