Skip to main content
Glama
tao-izm

devpulse-mcp

by tao-izm
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

75%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation3/5

    The tools have overlapping information: get_session_snapshot includes recent errors and running services, making it redundant with the other two. Descriptions help clarify usage order, but ambiguity remains.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent 'get_' prefix with clear noun phrases, forming a predictable and readable pattern.

    Tool Count4/5

    Three tools is on the low side for a dev diagnostic server, but the snapshot tool consolidates key info, making the count reasonable for basic orientation.

    Completeness4/5

    The set covers errors, services, and a broad snapshot (git, env, health). Minor gaps like detailed log history or dependency checks exist, but core diagnostics are present.

  • Average 3.8/5 across 3 of 3 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.

  • 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.

  • 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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool shows running and missing processes on specific ports, but does not mention side effects, permissions, or any limitations beyond the listed ports.

    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 clear sentences with no redundant information. Each sentence adds value: first states what it does, second adds the expected-but-missing aspect.

    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 the lack of output schema and minimal parameter documentation, the description omits important details such as return format, what 'expected but missing' means, and how the cwd parameter affects the output. More context would be beneficial for a complete understanding.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters1/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The input schema has one parameter (cwd) with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what cwd does or how it affects the results, leaving the agent with no guidance on its usage.

    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 specific verb ('lists') and resource ('processes on common dev ports'), and distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on a specific set of ports and including expected but missing processes.

    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 checking processes on common dev ports, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_recent_errors or get_session_snapshot, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

    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 covers key behaviors: returns only ERROR/WARN, deduped, timestamped, secrets redacted, defaults to last 50 lines. It does not mention idempotency or side effects, but as a read operation this is acceptable.

    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 are concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every word adds value without redundancy.

    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 and lack of output schema, the description covers core functionality and features. It lacks detail on return format or real-time behavior, but it is largely sufficient.

    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 has 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'Defaults to last 50 lines' explaining the limit parameter, but 'cwd' (current working directory) is not explained. It adds some value beyond the bare schema but leaves ambiguity.

    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 returns ERROR and WARN log entries with dedup, timestamping, and secret redaction. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_running_services, get_session_snapshot) which serve different purposes.

    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 for retrieving recent log errors/warnings but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No guidance on prerequisites or 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?

    No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it returns a snapshot, implying read-only and non-destructive. However, it does not explicitly mention permissions or side effects, though 'snapshot' strongly suggests a safe operation.

    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?

    Three concise sentences: first states action, second lists contents, third gives usage advice. No redundancy, every sentence adds value.

    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?

    Well-structured but lacks parameter documentation. With no output schema, the description lists return categories but omits format details. The missing parameter explanation is a notable gap for a tool with one parameter.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters1/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Input schema has one optional parameter 'cwd' with no description and 0% schema coverage. The tool description does not mention this parameter, leaving the agent without guidance on its purpose or usage.

    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?

    Description clearly states it returns a real-time diagnostic snapshot of the current dev environment, listing specific contents. It distinguishes from siblings get_recent_errors and get_running_services as a broader orientation tool.

    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 instructs to 'Call this first to orient yourself in the user's dev session,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

    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

devpulse-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

devpulse-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/tao-izm/devpulse-mcp'

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