Crystal Suppliers MCP
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.0
- Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: search, single product retrieval, materials listing, sourcing guidance, shortlist building, and inquiry preparation. No overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5All tools follow the 'crystal_verb_noun' pattern consistently, e.g., crystal_search_products, crystal_get_product, crystal_list_materials. The naming is clear and predictable.
Tool Count5/5With 6 tools covering search, detail, materials, guidance, shortlist, and inquiry, the count is appropriate for the domain of crystal supply procurement without being excessive or insufficient.
Completeness4/5The tool set covers the key workflows for bracelet procurement: search, details, materials, sourcing guidance, shortlist, and inquiry. Minor gaps exist for real-time inventory or order placement, but these are outside the stated advisory scope.
Average 3.8/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 5 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on
- 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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto 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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive flags, but the description adds specific behavioral guarantees: 'never sends, stores, or submits buyer data and never invents commercial terms.' This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loading the purpose and immediately adding key behavioral guarantees. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the tool has 13 undocumented parameters and the description does not explain how to construct a valid inquiry. The agent lacks guidance on required vs optional fields, parameter interdependencies, or example usage, making the description incomplete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no information about any of the 13 parameters, and schema description coverage is 0%. The agent receives no help on parameter meaning, required fields, or formatting, leaving them to infer from parameter names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool 'validates bracelet SKUs and drafts an English wholesale inquiry,' providing a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like crystal_search_products or crystal_build_procurement_shortlist.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the tool is 'read-only' and 'never sends, stores, or submits buyer data,' implying safe usage without side effects. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives 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.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by explicitly stating that it 'never return[s] invented SKUs or stock' and that adjacent categories are advisory only, providing behavioral expectations beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at two sentences, front-loading the key purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing parameters, but overall it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters (1 required) and zero schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It only addresses the category parameter, leaving the rest unspecified. Although an output schema exists, the input parameter explanations are lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only mentions the 'category' parameter (matching the enum). The other five parameters (channel, packaging, destination, contentAssets, proofRequirements) are left unexplained, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves 'source-linked procurement checks' for specific categories (bracelets, beads, accessories, raw materials), distinguishing it from sibling tools like crystal_search_products or crystal_get_product. It also clarifies that adjacent categories are advisory only, preventing misuse.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for procurement checks on listed categories, and warns against expecting exact SKUs for adjacent categories. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when to use this tool over alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.
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 adds context beyond annotations by explaining the deterministic nature and that only catalog bracelets yield verified products, while other categories are advisory. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so this adds useful nuance.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds a critical constraint. No redundant words, front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having 12 parameters and an output schema, the description is too brief. It lacks guidance on parameter usage, output format, or how to interpret advisory items, making it 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.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain any of the 12 parameters. The agent must infer meaning from names alone, leaving significant ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool builds a 'deterministic shortlist across crystal categories' and specifies that verified products are limited to catalog bracelets, distinguishing it from siblings like crystal_search_products and crystal_prepare_inquiry.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for procurement shortlisting but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as crystal_search_products or crystal_get_sourcing_guidance.
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?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds return details (materials, source URL, etc.) but no additional behavioral traits like auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is efficient and front-loaded, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing return fields). No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers core purpose and explicit return fields, supported by output schema. Missing error handling or authentication context, but sufficient for a simple read operation with good annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage; description states parameters are for exact match by SKU or slug. However, it doesn't clarify if both can be provided, which takes precedence, or that exactly one is required. Adds basic meaning but lacks full clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'one verified bracelet', and identification method 'by exact SKU or slug'. It specifies what is returned (materials, source URL, related products, confirmation status). Distinct from sibling tools like crystal_search_products which handle searches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage when exact SKU or slug is known, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like crystal_search_products. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions mentioned.
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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds value by specifying that counts are specific to the bracelet catalog and exclude other item types. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, but it lacks parameter explanations and does not define what constitutes a 'material' or how counts are derived. Adequate but incomplete for a tool with three undocumented parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), and the description provides no explanation for limit, query, or cursor. This is a critical gap as the agent cannot infer parameter usage from the description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists normalized materials and SKU counts from the bracelet catalog, identifying the verb (list), resource (materials, SKU counts), and scope (bracelet catalog). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like crystal_search_products which search for products.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clarifies that counts do not cover loose beads, components, or raw crystals, implying it should be used for bracelet materials only. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions for other contexts.
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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint. Description adds useful behavioral specifics: pricing, MOQ, inventory, lead time, and certificates are never inferred. This exceeds annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no unnecessary words. Critical information is front-loaded (search scope) and limitations stated succinctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complexity is moderate with 8 parameters and an output schema. Description covers core functionality, scope boundaries, and data limitations. Pagination is left to schema, which is acceptable given the output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. Description explains search-by fields (SKU, name, material, theme) which maps to the query and materials parameters, but omits pagination (limit, cursor) and filter-by useCases/benefitTags. Partial compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description specifies a concrete action: searching a verified 104-SKU bracelet catalog by SKU, name, material, or theme. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by noting that beads, accessories, and raw materials return advisory-only coverage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear when-to-use guidance (for bracelet catalog) and when-not (advisory for others). Context signals mention sibling tools like crystal_get_product for specific lookups, reinforcing the tool's niche.
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:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md: