junto-mcp
Server Quality Checklist
This repository includes a README.md file.
This repository includes a LICENSE file.
Latest release: v0.2.0
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.
- This server provides 7 tools. View schema
No known security issues or vulnerabilities reported.
This server has been verified by its author.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
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 disclosure but fails to explain side effects (e.g., whether emails are sent), idempotency, or which of the three output types is generated under what conditions. It does not indicate what the tool returns or how expiration behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single terse sentence of six words. While it avoids redundancy, it is insufficiently detailed for a financial tool with seven parameters and three potential output variants, leaving critical behavioral questions unanswered.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a payment creation tool with multiple output formats and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to resolve the ambiguity of 'payment request, invoice, or QR code' (mutually exclusive? selected how?) or describe the response structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting all seven parameters including units (cents) and formats (ISO 4217). The description adds no specific parameter guidance beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation for well-documented schemas.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Create') and the resources ('payment request, invoice, or QR code'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'refund' or 'pay'. However, it does not explicitly clarify the relationship between these three distinct outputs or when to expect each one.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'pay' (which likely sends funds) or when to prefer specific output types. There are no stated prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions for its use.
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 mentions 'best available provider' selection logic but fails to disclose critical financial operation traits: whether the transaction is irreversible (requiring 'refund'), if it requires pre-authorization, rate limits, or failure behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The two-sentence structure is appropriately front-loaded with the action verb. While 'Amount in cents' appears redundant given complete schema coverage, it earns its place as critical safety information preventing decimal errors in financial transactions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high schema coverage, the description meets minimum viability. However, for a high-stakes financial mutation tool lacking annotations and output schema, it omits expected safety context about fund availability checks and transaction finality.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description repeats 'Amount in cents' which appears verbatim in the schema's amount parameter description, adding no new semantic value. It does not clarify parameter interdependencies (e.g., destination_type hinting destination format).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the core action ('Send money') and target ('destination'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'charge' (receive) and 'refund' (reverse). However, it stops short of explicitly clarifying that this debits funds from the user's account, which would strengthen differentiation from non-financial tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this versus 'charge' or 'refund', nor are prerequisites mentioned (e.g., verifying sufficient balance via the 'balance' tool first). The description lacks 'when-not-to-use' exclusions or alternative recommendations.
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. While 'Check' implies a read-only operation, the description lacks critical details: whether data is real-time or cached, what format/currency the balance is returned in, error handling for invalid providers, or rate limiting.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of six words with zero redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core action without filler, making it appropriately sized for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no nested objects), the description adequately covers the basic invocation pattern. However, lacking an output schema, it omits what the agent/user receives (e.g., balance amount, currency, timestamp), which would be necessary for the agent to handle the response correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage (the 'provider' parameter is fully documented in the schema as optional with default behavior), the description meets the baseline. It references 'payment provider' aligning with the parameter name, but adds no semantic value regarding valid provider formats or examples beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('Check') and identifies the specific resource ('available funds on a payment provider'). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'limits', which could also relate to financial thresholds or quotas, potentially causing selection confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 siblings like 'limits' or 'status'. It fails to mention common workflows such as checking balance before invoking 'charge' or 'pay', and does not note prerequisites like authentication requirements.
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 fails to mention error handling (e.g., invalid ID), whether this requires specific permissions, what status values are returned, or if the operation is idempotent/safe. The word 'Check' implies read-only but doesn't confirm it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence of eight words with the action verb front-loaded. There is no redundant or wasted language; every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple 2-parameter input schema with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it could be improved by describing the expected return value (status values, transaction details) or behavior when the ID is not found, especially since no output schema exists to document this.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'correlation ID' which aligns with the 'id' parameter description in the schema, but adds no additional semantic context (e.g., format, where to obtain it) beyond what the schema already provides for either parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Check' with the resource 'payment or charge status' and identifies the lookup key 'correlation ID'. It implicitly distinguishes from action-oriented siblings like 'charge', 'pay', and 'refund' by being a read operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the correlation ID requirement implies use for existing transactions (vs. creating new ones via 'charge' or 'pay'), there is no explicit 'when-to-use' or mention of prerequisites like obtaining the ID from a prior call.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. States the operation is a refund on completed payments, but lacks critical details: idempotency, failure modes, partial vs full refunds, or synchronous/asynchronous behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single 7-word sentence with zero redundancy. Action verb front-loaded. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
High-stakes financial mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral description. Inadequate for the operational complexity and risk level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% description coverage. Description mentions 'correlation ID' reinforcing the id parameter, but adds no semantic value for the optional 'provider' parameter or usage scenarios beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear specific verb 'Refund' and resource 'completed payment', clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'charge' or 'pay' which create payments rather than reverse them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage restriction via 'completed payment' (suggesting not for pending transactions), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to sibling alternatives.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and adds critical context that output values are 'in cents,' explaining the data format. However, it omits other behavioral details such as whether the data is real-time, cached, or subject to rate limiting.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single-sentence description is efficiently front-loaded with the action verb and packs essential information about the resource and data format without waste. Every clause serves a distinct purpose: identifying the action, the resources, and the value format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the return values by specifying both spending limits and today's usage with their monetary unit. It fulfills the minimum requirements for a read-only status tool, though it could further clarify the scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4, and the description appropriately does not invent parameter details. The schema coverage is vacuously 100%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Check' and clearly identifies the resource as 'current spending limits and today's usage,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like balance or status. While it effectively communicates the tool's function through resource specificity, it does not explicitly contrast with specific alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to select this tool over siblings such as balance or status, nor does it mention prerequisites. Users must infer applicability solely from the resource description without explicit when-to-use criteria.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. Adds value by mentioning 'capabilities' (what providers can do), but lacks operational details like read-only safety, caching behavior, or response format that annotations would typically cover.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with verb and resource. Appropriate length for a simple discovery tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a low-complexity tool (0 params, no nested objects). Specifies return value content (providers + capabilities) even without output schema. Could improve by mentioning return format or structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters. Per baseline rules for 0-param tools, score is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Uses specific verb 'List' with clear resource 'configured payment providers' and includes 'capabilities' to specify scope. Distinct from action-oriented siblings (charge, pay, refund) and status tools (balance, status, limits).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance provided. However, usage is implied by the contrast with transactional siblings - this is a discovery/configuration tool versus payment execution tools.
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:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
How to claim the server?
If you are the author of the server, you simply need to authenticate using GitHub.
However, if the MCP server belongs to an organization, you need to first add glama.json to the root of your repository.
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
"maintainers": [
"your-github-username"
]
}Then, authenticate using GitHub.
Browse examples.
How to make a release?
A "release" on Glama is not the same as a GitHub release. To create a Glama release:
- Claim the server if you haven't already.
- Go to the Dockerfile admin page, configure the build spec, and click Deploy.
- Once the build test succeeds, click Make Release, enter a version, and publish.
This process allows Glama to run security checks on your server and enables users to deploy it.
How to add a LICENSE?
Please follow the instructions in the GitHub documentation.
Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear on the server after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
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.
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/vrllrv/junto-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server