Skip to main content
Glama
xashfh1234-oss

feishu-access-bridge

by xashfh1234-oss
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools serve distinct purposes: one reads Feishu resources, the other checks authentication status. There is no overlap, so an agent can easily distinguish them.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tools share the 'feishu_' prefix, but 'read_resource' follows a verb_noun pattern while 'auth_status' is more of a noun phrase. The inconsistency is minor given the small set.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the set is at the lower boundary of acceptable size. It is enough for basic read and status checks but feels thin for a general access bridge.

    Completeness2/5

    The set lacks crucial operations like listing available resources, writing/updating, or searching. It covers only reading by URL and auth status, leaving significant gaps for a Feishu integration.

  • Average 3.6/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It communicates that this is a read operation and mentions API or browser mode, but it fails to explain authentication requirements, what data is returned, or what the two modes actually entail.

    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, compact sentence with no redundant words and front-loads the verb and target resources. It is concise, though slightly too terse to fully cover the parameter space.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

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

    For a tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks essential context: how to choose kind/mode, authentication needs, and expected return value. It is too minimal to fully guide an agent beyond the initial call.

    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 coverage is only 33% and the description must compensate. While it lists the resource types from the 'kind' enum, it does not explain the 'mode' values (user/tenant) or the 'auto' defaults, and it omits parameter syntax or relationships.

    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 ('Read') and names the exact resource types (wiki, docx, sheet, bitable URL), making it clear what the tool operates on. It also distinguishes itself from the only sibling (feishu_auth_status), which checks auth status rather than reading resources.

    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 phrase 'Read a Feishu... URL' implies when to use it, but no explicit exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned. The description does not clarify when to prefer API versus browser mode, or when 'auto' kind/mode is appropriate.

    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?

    The description adds the security-relevant behavior of not exposing secrets, which is meaningful given the lack of annotations. 'Report' also implies a read-only operation, but side effects, failure modes, or return structure are not disclosed, keeping this at a moderate level.

    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 single sentence is front-loaded with the action ('Report') and the object, and the qualifier 'without exposing secrets' adds essential safety context without redundancy. Every word contributes meaning.

    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 is sufficient for a no-parameter status tool but omits any mention of the output format or how this relates to feishu_read_resource. Given the lack of output schema and annotations, a bit more detail on when to use this tool would improve completeness.

    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?

    With zero parameters in the input schema, the description has no parameter details to convey. The baseline score of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document. The description correctly focuses on the tool's output and purpose instead.

    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 the specific verb 'Report' and identifies the resource as 'configured Feishu access paths', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling feishu_read_resource. It also qualifies the operation with 'without exposing secrets', adding valuable context about the tool's purpose.

    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 feishu_read_resource. No exclusions or alternative scenarios are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage.

    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

feishu-access-bridge MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

feishu-access-bridge 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/xashfh1234-oss/feishu-access-bridge'

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