Rovodev CLI MCP

by yanggf8

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation2/5
Multiple tools have identical or overlapping purposes: 'ask-rovodev' and 'tap-rovodev' have exactly the same description, making them indistinguishable. 'fetch-chunk' and 'next-chunk' both deal with chunks from cached responses, though they are differentiated. 'diagnostics' and 'health_check' also overlap in providing system information.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some use hyphens (ask-rovodev, fetch-chunk), some underscores (health_check, session_manager), some are capitalized (Help, Ping), others lowercase. Verbs and nouns are mixed without clear convention.
Tool Count4/5
With 9 tools, the count falls within the typical 3-15 range. However, the presence of two identical tools (ask-rovodev and tap-rovodev) suggests the set could be streamlined. Overall, the number is reasonable for the server's purpose.
Completeness3/5
The tool surface covers the core operations of invoking the Rovodev agent, managing sessions, and checking health, but lacks lifecycle management for sessions (e.g., listing, deleting) and config management beyond flags. The duplicate tool indicates unnecessary redundancy.
Average 3.7/5 across 9 of 9 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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'Always runs in yolo mode (non-interactive)' and lists supported flags, but does not describe potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens when called beyond invoking the agent. The behavioral transparency is minimal but not absent.
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 long, each sentence adds value. The first sentence defines the action and invocation method. The second sentence clarifies operational mode and flags. No word is wasted, and critical information is front-loaded.
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 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error handling, session management implications, or how to structure complex commands. The agent lacks context for effective parameter usage.
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?
The schema covers all 12 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description mentions example flags (--config-file, --shadow, --verbose, --restore) but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain parameter interplay or default behavior for omitted parameters.
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 'Invoke' and the resource 'Rovodev agent', and specifies it runs in yolo mode via 'acli rovodev run'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'tap-rovodev' only implicitly by naming the command; no explicit differentiation is provided.
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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'tap-rovodev' or 'session_manager'. It does not specify prerequisites, selection criteria, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
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 exist, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool checks health status and lists included components but does not disclose whether it performs any modifications, requires authentication, or what happens if components are unavailable. For a health check, it is moderately transparent but could be more explicit about being read-only.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. No unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more concise by removing 'Rovodev' redundancy. Overall well-structured.
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 tool's simplicity (no required parameters, one optional boolean, no output schema), the description provides adequate context about what the health check covers. However, it does not describe the response format, which might be helpful for an agent.
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?
The single parameter 'detailed' is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks health status of the server, including specific components like CLI availability, session manager, and environment. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like 'diagnostics' or 'session_manager', leading to potential confusion.
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 merely states what it does, without indicating appropriate contexts or when not to use it.
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?
Without annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions 'always runs in yolo mode (non-interactive)', which is valuable, but omits other critical traits like authentication requirements, side effects, rate limits, or error handling.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and no redundant information. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.
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?
For a tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It lacks guidance on parameter interplay (e.g., retries with backoff) and does not explain how this tool fits with siblings like session_manager.
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 documentation covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description lists a few flags but adds no semantic depth beyond what the schema already provides.
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 action: 'Invoke Rovodev agent via 'acli rovodev run''. It identifies the specific verb (invoke) and resource (Rovodev agent) and differentiates from siblings like ask-rovodev by implying this is the direct execution command.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings such as ask-rovodev or diagnostics exist, but the description does not mention them or suggest when to choose one over the other.
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 does not disclose whether fetching a chunk is idempotent, if it has side effects, rate limits, or what the response format is. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely involves state.
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 conveys the core action and prerequisite. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks details on what constitutes a 'chunk', error handling, or the relationship with 'fetch-chunk', which could lead to incomplete understanding.
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%, and the description adds context by linking the cacheKey to ask-rovodev, which is beyond the schema's description. This helps the agent understand the parameter's origin.
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 it fetches the next chunk for a previously cached large response from ask-rovodev. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'fetch-chunk'.
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 after a cached response from ask-rovodev, but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives. The context suggests it's for pagination, but no guidance is given.
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 provided, so description carries the full burden. It only mentions 'isolated sessions' and 'working directory' but omits details like side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The actions from the schema are not elaborated upon in the description.
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 clear subject and verb. Every word serves a purpose. No repetition or fluff.
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 output schema and multiple actions, the description should provide more context about return values and action-specific behavior. It lacks completeness for a tool with 3 parameters and 5 actions. More details are needed for effective 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for all 3 parameters, so the bar is higher. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the overall purpose. Thus, it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.
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 manages isolated sessions for Rovodev CLI operations, specifying sessions have their own working directory and maintain context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are unrelated to session management.
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 implies usage for session management but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusions. However, it lists the possible actions (create, destroy, list, get, cleanup) which offer some guidance. Siblings are clearly different, so context is clear but not exhaustive.
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 exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the basic fetch behavior without mentioning side effects, permissions, or error conditions. This is adequate for a simple read operation, but lacks depth such as what happens if the cache key is invalid or if chunks are missing.
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 sentence that immediately states the verb and resource. Every word is necessary and effective. No redundancy or filler.
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 simple fetch tool, the description covers the source (ask-rovodev) and purpose. It lacks mention of the relationship with 'next-chunk', but given the simplicity and good schema coverage, it is nearly complete. Minor gap: no error handling or precondition info.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters well. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating the purpose; no constraints, formatting, or usage tips are provided. Baseline 3 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 specifies the action ('Fetch a specific chunk'), the resource ('previously cached large response'), and the source ('from ask-rovodev'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'next-chunk' (which likely retrieves sequential chunks) and 'ask-rovodev' (which creates the cache).
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 states 'from a previously cached large response (from ask-rovodev)', implying it should be used after ask-rovodev, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like 'next-chunk' for sequential access. Some context is provided but lacks thorough guidance.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It uses 'Get' indicating a read operation, and lists included data, but does not disclose potential performance impact or system load from collecting diagnostics. However, it is transparent enough for a read-only 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?
Single sentence that is concise and front-loaded: it states the purpose and lists key information categories without waste. Every word earns its place.
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 tool lacks an output schema but the description lists the expected categories of information. With 6 optional parameters clearly described, it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke correctly. Some details on output format would improve completeness.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage; each parameter has a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond listing categories. Baseline 3 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: 'Get comprehensive diagnostics information.' It lists specific categories (performance metrics, health status, session statistics, system information), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like health_check and session_manager.
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 the tool is for comprehensive diagnostics but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., health_check for health only). No exclusion criteria or context is given.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation (displaying help) with no side effects. While it could mention that no modifications occur, the simplicity of the tool makes this adequate.
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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable.
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 no parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward purpose, the description is complete. It tells an agent exactly what the tool does without needing additional context.
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?
There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter information, but per the rule, zero parameters earn a baseline of 4. No additional semantics needed.
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 'Show underlying Rovodev CLI help output' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('Rovodev CLI help output'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'ask-rovodev' or 'diagnostics' by focusing purely on CLI help.
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 when CLI help is needed, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives or when not to use is provided. Given the context of sibling tools, the purpose is reasonably clear but lacks explicit usage context.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility. It correctly states the tool echoes back a message, implying no destructive side effects. This is adequate for a trivial test 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?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words, perfectly concise and front-loaded.
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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does and when to use it.
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?
The parameter 'message' has a full description in the schema (100% coverage), so the description's addition of 'Echo back a message' adds minimal extra meaning. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 echoes back a message for testing, with a specific verb ('Echo back') and resource ('a message'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform different functions like diagnostics or health checks.
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 says 'for testing', indicating the tool is used for test or connectivity verification. While it does not provide explicit when-not or alternatives, the simplicity of the tool makes this sufficient.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![rovodev-cli-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yanggf8/rovodev-cli-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yanggf8/rovodev-cli-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![rovodev-cli-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yanggf8/rovodev-cli-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yanggf8/rovodev-cli-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/yanggf8/rovodev-cli-mcp'

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