Skip to main content
Glama
xihe-lab

YanceLint MCP Server

by xihe-lab
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a distinct purpose: check_health verifies server status and lists scanners, get_file_violations returns violations for a specific file, and get_project_summary provides aggregated totals. No overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (check_health, get_file_violations, get_project_summary), with clear and predictable naming.

    Tool Count4/5

    The server has 3 tools, which is reasonable for a focused linting service. While slightly lean, the tools cover the core functionality without unnecessary redundancy.

    Completeness4/5

    The set covers health checking, file-level violation retrieval, and project summary. Missing explicit support for per-tool configuration or detailed project-wide results, but the core use cases are addressed.

  • Average 4.1/5 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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavior: automatic linter selection based on file type. It also mentions the return fields. However, it does not cover error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are minor gaps for a simple 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?

    Two concise sentences front-loaded with purpose. No unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value: first states core function, second explains linter selection and return info.

    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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, how linter selection works, and what information is returned. Could mention error handling for missing files, but overall complete for typical use.

    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?

    There is only one parameter ('file_path') with full schema coverage (100%). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's 'absolute path' description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides clear semantics.

    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 retrieves code violation lists for a file, specifies that YanceLint automatically selects the appropriate linter based on file type (P3C, ESLint, etc.), and lists returned information (message, severity, line number). This makes the purpose explicit and distinguishes it from siblings like 'check_health' and 'get_project_summary'.

    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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide when-not conditions. However, given sibling tools are unrelated (health check, project summary), usage is implicitly clear. No guidance on prerequisites 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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It indicates a read operation returning total violations per tool, but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior like caching. Adequate but basic.

    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, efficient sentence that front-loads the main purpose. No unnecessary words; all information is relevant.

    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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main content (totals per tool) but lacks details on the return structure or format. Sibling tools provide context, but a slightly more complete description would clarify output format.

    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 the input schema is empty. The description does not need to explain parameters, and with no parameters, baseline is 4.

    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 retrieves a project-level summary of code convention violations, including totals per tool (P3C, ESLint, Stylelint, Checkstyle). It distinguishes from siblings like get_file_violations by focusing on aggregated project-level data.

    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 use for high-level summaries but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., get_file_violations for per-file details, check_health for health status). No exclusions or alternatives are provided.

    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?

    Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool checks server status and returns a list of scanning tools, which is sufficient for a health check. No side effects are expected. Score 4 for clear but minimal behavioral 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 sentence that is front-loaded with the key action. No redundant words.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does and how it relates to siblings. It mentions the return type (list of scanning tools) which adds 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?

    The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% vacuously. Per the rubric, baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool does, so this score 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: checking if the YanceLint Server is running and returning a list of available scanning tools. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource, and distinguishes from siblings (get_file_violations, get_project_summary) 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 for verifying server status and listing tools, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, or when not to use it. A 3 is appropriate as it's implied but not explicit.

    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

yance-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

yance-mcp-server 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/xihe-lab/yance-mcp-server'

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