Skip to main content
Glama
yc-lm

performance-mcp

by yc-lm
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: periods, evaluations list, evaluation detail, and draft saving. Descriptions clearly differentiate them, with no overlapping purposes.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: 'list_periods', 'list_performance_evaluations', 'get_performance_evaluation_detail', 'save_performance_draft'. The verb choice (list vs get) appropriately distinguishes collection from single item retrieval.

    Tool Count4/5

    With 4 tools, the server covers basic viewing and drafting for performance evaluations, which is a reasonable minimal set. It does not feel overly thin or excessive for the stated purpose.

    Completeness2/5

    The toolset supports listing periods and evaluations, viewing details, and saving drafts, but critically lacks a tool to submit or finalize an evaluation. This is a notable gap that would prevent completing the core evaluation workflow.

  • Average 3.9/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 3 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

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • 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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations provided. Description only states basic function; does not disclose ordering, pagination, or whether periods are active/inactive. Minimal behavioral insight.

    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, front-loaded, no redundant words. 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?

    Simple tool with no complexity. Description covers main purpose, but could mention additional context like sort order or scope (e.g., 'current and upcoming periods').

    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?

    No parameters, so description need not add param info. Baseline 4 per guidelines for zero-parameter tool.

    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?

    Clear verb 'list' and resource 'performance assessment periods' with context 'for the logged-in user'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like list_performance_evaluations.

    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 on when to use this tool versus siblings such as list_performance_evaluations, get_performance_evaluation_detail, or save_performance_draft. Missing context for selection.

    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 must disclose behavioral traits. It explicitly states the tool does not submit a final evaluation, but lacks details on idempotency, overwrite behavior, or success/failure outcomes.

    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 that are immediately informative: the first gives the core purpose and endpoint, the second reinforces the non-submission trait. 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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is adequate but not rich. It covers the essential behavioral trait (draft only) but omits return value, prerequisites, and error scenarios. Sibling tools are list/get, so no conflict.

    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% and all parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond mentioning the endpoint. 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 verb 'save' and the resource 'self-evaluation draft', and explicitly distinguishes from final submission. Sibling tools are list/get operations, so this tool's purpose is distinct.

    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 tells the agent to use this for saving drafts and not for final submission ('never submits'). It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficiently clear.

    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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It indicates a read operation via 'Get' and lists the output components. However, it does not explicitly state it is read-only or idempotent, nor mention any authentication or error conditions. Still, the verb 'Get' strongly implies safety.

    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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the action and the scope of output.

    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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately lists the return fields (tasks, scores, comments, summary). It could be more complete by mentioning if the evaluation must exist or if there are access constraints, but overall it provides sufficient context given the tool's simplicity.

    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% with a single parameter 'evaluationId' described as 'Evaluation ID to query.' The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it just repeats the parameter usage contextually. Since schema already covers it, 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 gets complete detail for one performance evaluation, specifying included content (tasks, scores, comments, code/document summary). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_performance_evaluations which likely provide summaries, and save_performance_draft which creates/edits.

    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?

    No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_performance_evaluations or save_performance_draft. The tool name and description imply it's for retrieving a single evaluation's full details, but no when-not-to-use or prerequisites are stated.

    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?

    Discloses that it lists evaluations for the current user, which is a behavioral scope. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not mention pagination, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond the schema. Acceptable but could be more explicit.

    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 purpose, and a clear usage hint. No wasted words.

    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 low complexity and good schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It could mention that all parameters are optional, but the schema implies that. No output schema means return values are not described, which is acceptable.

    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 description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the hint about period ID. The description does not elaborate on parameter behavior or constraints that are not already in 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 it lists performance evaluations for the current user, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_periods (which lists periods) and get_performance_evaluation_detail (which gets a single evaluation).

    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?

    Provides explicit guidance: 'Use list_periods first when a period ID is needed.' This helps the agent understand the prerequisite. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or alternative tools for other operations.

    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

performance-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

performance-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/yc-lm/performance-mcp'

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