Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
kothar

kothar

by yahiaklk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

recommend_for_project

Given a project description, identifies the appropriate MCP servers and explains why they are recommended.

Instructions

Given a project description, recommend the top MCP servers to install and explain why each one fits. Example: "Python FastAPI backend with PostgreSQL and JWT auth"

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "description": "<description>"
    },
    "name": "recommend_for_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
descriptionYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-like recommendation behavior but does not disclose details like whether it modifies state, requires authentication, or has limitations on input length.

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 two sentences and an example, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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 the existence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers what the tool does and gives an example, but could mention that it returns a list of servers with explanations. The hint 'top' could be clarified.

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% coverage, so the description must add meaning. It specifies that the parameter is a 'project description' and provides an example, which clarifies the expected format beyond the bare 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's function: given a project description, it recommends MCP servers and explains why. It distinguishes from siblings like 'recommend_for_goal' by specifying the input is a project description, not a goal.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use (when you have a project description) with an example, but does not mention when not to use or explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools