yade-mcp

by yusong652

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.11.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: API browsing and searching are separate from code execution (sync vs async) and task management (status, interrupt, list). No overlap in functionality, and descriptions explicitly differentiate borderline cases (e.g., execute_code vs execute_task).
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'yade_verb_noun' pattern in snake_case. Verbs are descriptive (browse, check, execute, interrupt, list, query) and nouns are specific (api, task, code, tasks). No mixing of styles.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the surface is well-scoped for YADE interaction: API exploration (2 tools), code execution (2 tools for synchronous vs async), and task lifecycle management (3 tools). Not too many or too few.
Completeness5/5
The toolset covers the full lifecycle of interacting with a YADE simulation: discovering API, executing code synchronously for quick queries and asynchronously for long tasks, managing task queue (submit, interrupt, list, check status). No obvious gaps.
Average 4.3/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 3.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 91 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 26, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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.
View related servers

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?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It merely states the tool checks status and output, but does not explain that it performs a polling operation (as suggested by wait_seconds parameter), whether it waits for completion, or what the output format entails. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
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 concise sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly longer to include essential usage context without compromising conciseness.
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?
Despite having a complex input schema with 5 parameters and an existing output schema, the description provides minimal context. It fails to explain the tool's role in the workflow (e.g., polling for task completion), the meaning of the output, or how parameters like wait_seconds affect behavior. This is insufficient for a tool of this complexity.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what is already in the input schema. While adequate, it does not enhance understanding of parameter semantics.
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 uses a clear verb 'Check' and specific resource 'status and output for a submitted YADE task'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like yade_execute_task (submission) and yade_interrupt_task (interruption), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 should be used after submitting a YADE task ('for a submitted YADE task'), but it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like yade_list_tasks or yade_interrupt_task, nor does it provide any exclusions or conditions.
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?
Discloses ordering ('newest first') and queue behavior for pending tasks, adding value beyond the schema. However, with no annotations, it could further state that it is 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, each valuable. 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 an output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers listing, pagination, and ordering. Minor gap: no mention of return fields, but schema compensates.
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 the description adds context about pagination ordering but no new meaning beyond param descriptions. 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 'List tracked YADE tasks with pagination' with a specific verb and resource, and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like yade_check_task_status by focusing on listing.
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 (e.g., yade_check_task_status), nor 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.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states 'no shortcuts' and 'always drill through parents,' which is a behavioral constraint. As a browse tool, it is implicitly read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.
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 concise, consisting of two informative sentences. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Could include a bit more detail, but overall efficient.
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 (one parameter, browse-only) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the hierarchy and navigation rules. Minor omission: does not mention the response format, but output schema covers that.
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%, so the schema already provides detailed parameter semantics with examples. The tool description adds context about the tree structure, but the parameter description in the schema is sufficiently rich.
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 browses YADE's Python API as a class tree, and the parameter description further clarifies navigation. It is distinct from sibling tools which are task/execution related.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, the siblings are clearly different in function, so the context provides implicit usage guidance. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are given.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Details side effects persistence, responsiveness during running simulations, timeout error codes (interrupted, terminated, timeout), and consequences of each. Also warns about state drift and unresponsiveness.
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?
Well-structured with front-loaded core purpose, bullet points for typical uses, and detailed timeout section. Every sentence adds value, though length could be slightly reduced for extreme conciseness.
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?
Covers all necessary aspects: what, when, alternatives, side effects, error handling, and warnings. Output schema exists but is not needed since tool behavior is fully described. Complete for a synchronous execution 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with good descriptions. The description adds context about timeout behavior (error codes, suggestions) but does not significantly expand parameter meaning 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 tool executes Python code synchronously in the YADE process and returns stdout immediately. It explicitly contrasts with yade_execute_task for long-running simulations, establishing a distinct purpose.
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?
Provides explicit guidance: use for quick REPL-style inspection, not for tasks > a few seconds (use yade_execute_task). Warns against catching BaseException to avoid breaking cancellation. Includes alternative tools.
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?
The description details asynchronous execution, immediate return, background queuing, and sequential ordering. No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden and does well, though it omits potential failure modes or authorization requirements.
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?
Concise and well-structured: tool purpose first, then behavior, companion tools, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value.
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 complexity (async, queue, lifecycle), the description covers the key aspects: single-threaded execution, queue ordering, companion tools, and use case differentiation. Presence of output schema (context) covers return format.
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%, baseline 3. The description adds context: script_path is absolute, description is 'brief task purpose'. This enhances understanding beyond the schema field descriptions.
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 submits a Python script for asynchronous execution, returns a task_id, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like yade_execute_code by specifying use cases.
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 says use for production runs and long operations, and advises using yade_execute_code for quick testing. Also explains the sequential queue behavior and lifecycle management.
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 carries the full burden. It states the tool returns ranked search results, implying a read-only operation. While it does not explicitly declare no side effects, the nature of a documentation search tool makes this clear. The description could be slightly more explicit about being non-destructive.
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 concise and well-structured: it opens with the primary action, then describes return values, then provides usage guidance with examples, and finally lists a related tool. Every sentence is informative and relevant.
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 that an output schema exists (not shown, but indicated), the description does not need to detail return format. It covers purpose, usage scenarios, concrete query examples, and sibling tool differentiation. It is complete for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.
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 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing example queries (e.g., 'sphere body') and the analogy 'like grep', which helps the agent understand how to formulate the query. This enriches the schema's descriptions.
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 searches YADE API documentation by keywords, likening it to grep. It specifies that it returns class/function names with descriptions ranked by relevance. This differentiates it from the sibling yade_browse_api, which provides full documentation for a known class.
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 includes a 'When to use' section with concrete examples (e.g., 'friction material', 'gravity engine'). It also tells when to use the alternative tool (yade_browse_api for full documentation of a specific class). This provides clear guidance for the agent to select the correct tool.
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?
No annotations provided, so description fully discloses behavior: cancellation paths (flag_only, flag_and_async_exc), response method field, namespace preservation, and async exception handling. Very transparent.
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?
Front-loaded with main purpose, but subsequent paragraphs contain detailed technical explanations. While informative, some sentences could be condensed. Still well-structured for the complexity.
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?
Covers task states, cancellation paths, namespace impact, and response details. Given the tool's complexity and presence of an output schema, the description is thorough and complete.
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 description adds context: 'Task ID returned by yade_execute_task'. While schema already describes the parameter, the description clarifies its source and usage, adding value 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?
Clearly states 'Stop a running YADE task, or cancel one still waiting in the queue.' Specific verb and resource, distinct from sibling tools like yade_execute_task or yade_list_tasks.
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?
Provides when to use (interrupt/cancel tasks) and explicitly references alternatives for inspecting state (yade_execute_code) and resuming (yade_execute_task), offering clear 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

Copy to your README.md:

[![yade-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yusong652/yade-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yusong652/yade-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![yade-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yusong652/yade-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yusong652/yade-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/yusong652/yade-mcp'

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