TrueVoice MCP
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.0.0
- Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: retrieving rules, analyzing text for slop, and providing examples. There is no meaningful overlap between them, and their descriptions clearly separate the reference/instructional functions from the analysis function.
Naming Consistency4/5Tool names follow a clear and predictable lowercase snake_case pattern, mostly using get_ for reference tools and check_for_ for the analysis tool. Minor inconsistency exists between get_ and check_for_ as verb styles, but the naming remains readable and consistent overall.
Tool Count5/5Three tools is a well-scoped count for a focused MCP server centered on human writing rules and AI slop detection. Each tool serves a distinct and necessary role without bloat or redundancy.
Completeness4/5The tool surface covers the core domain well: users can learn the rules, see examples, and check their text for slop. A minor gap is the absence of a rewrite/improvement tool, but this is not a significant failure for the apparent advisory/analysis purpose.
Average 3.4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- 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.
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.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
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the core function without mentioning any restrictions, requirements, or side effects. There's no indication of output format, whether it returns a list, or any edge cases, providing minimal transparency beyond the obvious.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action and resource. No wasted words or redundancy, making it highly concise and easy to parse.
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?
For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides a basic understanding of its purpose. However, it doesn't specify the return format or any example output, which might be expected for a retrieval tool. Given the low complexity, it's adequate but leaves some room for more clarity.
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?
The schema covers 100% of the parameter description, including an enum for category with clear descriptions. The description adds 'categorized by type' which aligns with the category parameter, but offers no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fetches examples of common AI slop phrases and patterns, categorized by type. It specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'examples of slop phrases and patterns', making its purpose distinct from siblings like get_human_writing_rules and check_for_slop, though it doesn't explicitly name them as alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It doesn't mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions, leaving the agent to infer that it's for retrieving examples. This is a significant gap given the tool's siblings have overlapping domains.
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 are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it analyzes text and returns patterns, which is basic but does not mention any side effects, prerequisites, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a read-only analysis tool this is adequate, but not comprehensive.
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 with no redundancies. The core purpose and categories are front-loaded, and the return value is clarified in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. However, it does not describe the structure of the returned patterns, any limitations (e.g., language support), or how to interpret results, leaving an agent with only partial context for effective invocation and use.
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 coverage is 100% (the single 'text' parameter has a description). The description adds that it analyzes text, which aligns with the schema but provides no additional nuance about format, encoding, or expected content beyond what the schema already states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a clear verb (analyze) and resource (text for AI slop indicators), and explicitly lists three analysis categories. It distinguishes functionally from siblings (this analyzes, others provide rules/examples), though it doesn't name them directly, so it falls just short of a 5.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative routing is provided. The purpose implies this tool is for analyzing text, while get_human_writing_rules and get_slop_examples would likely be used for reference materials, but the description does not state this or offer any conditions 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys what the tool returns (rules) and how to apply them (as system-level instructions), which is reasonably transparent for a read-only retrieval tool. It doesn't disclose output scale, format, or how 'comprehensive' the rules are, but the essential behavior is clear.
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?
Two sentences with the purpose front-loaded before the usage direction. The first sentence delivers the core function and the second adds practical deployment guidance. No filler or repetition; appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity — one optional parameter, zero required parameters, no output schema, no nested objects — the description covers the essentials: what the tool does and how to apply its results. The context parameter semantics are already in the schema. Nothing critical an agent needs to invoke it successfully is missing.
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 coverage is 100% — the single optional 'context' parameter is fully documented in the schema with an example ('technical documentation', 'casual email'), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, meriting the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get comprehensive rules for writing like a human and avoiding AI slop.' This is clearly a rules-retrieval tool, and it is reasonably distinguishable from siblings check_for_slop (detection) and get_slop_examples (examples). However, it doesn't explicitly name siblings or state how it relates to them, so differentiation is implicit rather than direct.
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 second sentence provides useful application guidance: 'Use these rules as system-level instructions for any text generation task.' This tells the agent when and how to deploy the output. However, it offers no exclusions or alternatives — it doesn't say when to prefer get_slop_examples or check_for_slop instead, leaving some selection burden on the agent.
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:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/howdoiusekeyboard/TrueVoice-MCP'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server