Skip to main content
Glama
xyte-io

xyte-mcp

Official
by xyte-io
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.2.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a distinct role: listing endpoints, describing a specific endpoint, and making an API call. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tools start with 'xyte_' and follow a resource_action pattern, but there is a minor inconsistency: 'xyte_endpoints_list' uses plural 'endpoints' while 'xyte_endpoint_describe' uses singular 'endpoint'.

    Tool Count5/5

    With three tools, the server covers the essential workflow for an API wrapper: discover, describe, and call. It is well-scoped and not excessive or sparse.

    Completeness5/5

    The tools provide a complete cycle for interacting with the Xyte API: listing available endpoints, getting detailed parameters for a specific endpoint, and executing the call. No obvious gaps are present.

  • Average 4.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 6 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is failing

  • 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?

    Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe. Description adds that returns are 'compact rows,' which is useful but not critical. No contradictions.

    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. First sentence states primary purpose. Second sentence provides workflow guidance and filtering advice. No wasted 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 output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, filtering options, and the workflow to use describe. Complete for this tool.

    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?

    With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains all 5 parameters. The description briefly mentions filtering with namespace/group/method/search but adds little extra meaning beyond the schema.

    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 lists Xyte API endpoints. It distinguishes from siblings by directing to xyte_endpoint_describe for parameter details, and mentions filtering options to narrow results.

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

    Usage Guidelines5/5

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

    Explicitly advises to call xyte_endpoint_describe for specific endpoint parameters before invoking, and to use filters to keep results small. This guides the agent on proper workflow and when to use filtering.

    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?

    Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by specifying the contract contents, including credential needs, beyond what annotations provide.

    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 extraneous information. Every sentence is valuable.

    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 presence of an output schema and sibling tools, the description is complete, covering purpose, usage, and parameter semantics without needing to explain return values.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters5/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    With 100% schema coverage, the description enhances understanding by explaining the key parameter originates from xyte_endpoints_list and provides an example format, adding meaning beyond the schema.

    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?

    Description explicitly states it shows the full contract for an endpoint, including path parameters, query parameters, body shape, and credential requirements. It distinguishes itself from siblings by advising to call it before xyte_api_call when unsure of arguments.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    Clear directive to use before xyte_api_call when uncertain, providing context for usage. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the guidance is strong and actionable.

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

  • Behavior5/5

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

    The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that mutating endpoints run unless the server is read-only, and that DELETE operations require a confirm parameter. This matches the destructiveHint annotation and provides important safety details.

    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 two sentences with zero waste. The most critical information (invocation, prerequisite, mutability, confirm requirement) is front-loaded and clearly conveyed.

    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?

    The description is concise and appropriately relies on sibling tools for parameter details. With an output schema present, return values don't need elaboration. The description covers the essential behavioral and usage aspects for a generic API caller.

    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?

    Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting that path parameters are all required and query parameters only accept names listed by xyte_endpoint_describe, which is not evident from the schema alone.

    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 it invokes a Xyte API endpoint by key, which is a specific verb+resource. The sibling tools (xyte_endpoints_list and xyte_endpoint_describe) serve different purposes, so this tool is well-distinguished.

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

    Usage Guidelines5/5

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

    The description explicitly advises to use xyte_endpoint_describe first if unsure of parameters. It also clarifies that mutating endpoints run unless the server is read-only, and DELETE requires a confirm parameter. This provides clear when-to-use and prerequisite guidance.

    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

xyte-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

xyte-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/xyte-io/xyte-mcp'

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