Skip to main content
Glama
xiaobenyang-com

rfc-server

by xiaobenyang-com
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_rfc retrieves entire documents, get_rfc_section extracts specific sections, and search_rfcs finds documents by keyword. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions, making it easy for an agent to select the right tool.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (get_rfc, get_rfc_section, search_rfcs). The naming is predictable and readable, using clear verbs like 'get' and 'search' that accurately describe the actions.

    Tool Count4/5

    Three tools are reasonable for an RFC-focused server, covering core operations of fetching, sectioning, and searching. It is slightly lean but well-scoped; adding tools like list_rfcs or filter by date could enhance it, but the current set is functional.

    Completeness4/5

    The toolset covers essential RFC operations: retrieval, section access, and search. Minor gaps exist, such as no listing or filtering capabilities (e.g., by status or date), but agents can work around this using search. For the domain, it provides a solid foundation without dead ends.

  • Average 2.7/5 across 3 of 3 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

  • This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.

  • 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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without any details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the return value looks like (e.g., text format, metadata). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

    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 lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects, parameter details, or return values, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional 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 description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters 'number' and 'section' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the tool name, failing to explain what these parameters represent (e.g., RFC number format, section identifier syntax) or how they should be used.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'a specific section from an RFC', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_rfc' (which might fetch the entire RFC) or 'search_rfcs' (which might search across multiple RFCs), preventing a perfect 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_rfc' or 'search_rfcs'. The description implies usage for retrieving sections but offers no explicit context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches an RFC, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify potential behaviors like error handling for invalid numbers, response format details, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits like error handling, and output expectations, making it insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool without additional context or trial-and-error.

    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?

    The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions fetching 'by its number', which aligns with the 'number' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'format' parameter at all. This fails to add meaningful semantics beyond what little is implied, leaving half the parameters unexplained.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the action ('fetch') and resource ('RFC document by its number'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_rfc_section' or 'search_rfcs', but the specificity of fetching by number provides some implicit 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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_rfc_section' or 'search_rfcs'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the RFC number must be valid or in a specific format, and offers no explicit when-not-to-use advice.

    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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function without mentioning any behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, result format, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding 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 extremely concise at just 5 words, with zero wasted language. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the core function and doesn't include unnecessary elaboration.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Given no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but fails to address parameter details, behavioral characteristics, or result format. For a search tool that likely returns multiple results, more context about how to interpret and use the output would be valuable.

    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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'by keyword' which hints at the 'query' parameter's purpose, but doesn't explain what constitutes a valid keyword, search syntax, or how results are ranked. It completely ignores the 'limit' parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond what's inferable from parameter names.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the action ('Search') and target resource ('RFCs'), and specifies the search method ('by keyword'). It distinguishes from the sibling tools get_rfc and get_rfc_section by indicating this is a search operation rather than retrieval of specific RFCs or sections. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings beyond the verb choice.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools get_rfc or get_rfc_section. There's no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or specific contexts where this search tool is preferred over direct retrieval methods. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

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

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

Card Badge

1777316659312643 MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

1777316659312643 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/xiaobenyang-com/1777316659312643'

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