Skip to main content
Glama
xinyuzjj

Superpowers MCP

by xinyuzjj
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions

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 clearly distinct purposes: one lists available superpower skills, and the other runs commands, with no overlap in functionality that could cause confusion.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with hyphens (list-superpower-skills, run-superpower-command), though the slight variation in the noun part ('skills' vs 'command') is a minor deviation from perfect consistency.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a 'Superpowers' domain, as it lacks essential operations like creating, updating, or deleting superpowers, which limits its usefulness for typical agent workflows.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for a superpowers domain; it only supports listing and running commands, missing basic CRUD operations (e.g., create, update, delete superpowers) and other expected functionalities like managing users or permissions.

  • Average 2.5/5 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

  • 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

  • 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. The description only states the action ('Run a superpowers command') without any information about side effects, permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what happens upon execution. This is inadequate for a tool that likely performs mutations or operations with potential consequences.

    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 with a single sentence, 'Run a superpowers command', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it is under-informative, it does not suffer from verbosity or poor structure, earning full marks for conciseness.

    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 and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with potential complexity. It fails to explain what 'superpowers' entails, what commands are available, the outcome of running a command, or any behavioral traits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

    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?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters ('command' and 'args'). The description does not add any semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides—it mentions 'command' but offers no examples, constraints, or context for valid commands. Since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

    Purpose2/5

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

    The description 'Run a superpowers command' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'run-superpower-command'. It provides a generic verb+object but lacks specificity about what 'superpowers' refers to, what types of commands are available, or what resources are affected. While it distinguishes from the sibling 'list-superpower-skills' by implying execution rather than listing, the purpose remains vague and under-defined.

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

    Usage Guidelines1/5

    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. It does not mention prerequisites, context for command execution, or comparisons to the sibling tool 'list-superpower-skills'. There is no indication of when this tool is appropriate or what scenarios it addresses, leaving the agent with no 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 full burden. It states the tool lists skills but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns paginated results. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero 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's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary details.

    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 simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description is minimal but incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, response format) that would help an agent use it correctly, especially with no annotations to compensate.

    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 doesn't add param info, which is fine here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.

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

    Purpose3/5

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

    The description states the tool's purpose ('List all available superpowers skills') with a clear verb ('List') and resource ('superpowers skills'), but it's vague about scope—does 'available' mean globally or user-specific? It doesn't distinguish from the sibling tool 'run-superpower-command', which appears to execute rather than list skills.

    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. The description doesn't mention the sibling tool 'run-superpower-command' or clarify if this is for discovery before execution. Usage context is 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

superpowers-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

superpowers-mcp 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/xinyuzjj/superpowers-mcp'

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