Skip to main content
Glama
maxvoltage

SourceTap

by maxvoltage
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: fetch_web_content retrieves any web page, while query_docs specifically indexes and searches documentation from a ZIP archive. Although both accept URLs, the actions and outputs are unambiguous.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow the same verb_noun pattern with lower_snake_case: fetch_web_content and query_docs. The verbs differ but the structure is consistent and predictable.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server feels quite thin. This is borderline for a useful MCP server, though the tools themselves are substantial and well-defined.

    Completeness4/5

    The server covers two distinct capabilities: web content retrieval and documentation search. Potential gaps include lacking a way to list or manage indexed docs and no broader web search beyond direct URL fetching, but the core scope is reasonably served.

  • Average 3.2/5 across 2 of 2 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 is passing

  • 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'using Jina reader' and does not mention potential failures, rate limits, authentication needs, content-size limits, or how errors are surfaced.

    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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The Args section is slightly redundant with the schema but does not bloat the description.

    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?

    The tool is simple, has only one parameter, and provides an output schema, which reduces the need to document return values. Still, missing usage guidance and behavioral caveats leave some room for ambiguity about correct invocation.

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

    Parameters2/5

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

    Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. However, 'url: The URL of the web page to fetch content from' adds little beyond what the parameter name 'url' and the tool purpose already imply; no format, examples, or constraints are given.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states a specific verb ('Download') and resource ('content of any web page'), making the core purpose obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling query_docs, but the target of web pages versus docs is reasonably distinct.

    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?

    There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of query_docs, nor any mention of limitations or conditions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and one-liner.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior2/5

    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 disclosing behavior. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it downloads or indexes the archive persistently, what side effects occur, or what happens on large or inaccessible archives. The word 'Index' hints at possible stateful behavior but this is never clarified.

    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 front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose followed by a compact argument list. It contains no filler and every part adds useful information. The format is easy to scan and directly actionable for an agent.

    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?

    The tool is simple, has an output schema, and its parameter semantics are mostly covered. Still, because there are no annotations and no usage-vs-alternative guidance, the description leaves gaps around side effects, network behavior, and when to prefer this over 'fetch_web_content'. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

    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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for 'url' ('URL to a ZIP file, e.g. GitHub archive') and a minimal gloss for 'query' ('Search query'). The query parameter semantics are still thin, with no detail on search syntax, scope, or matching behavior, but the basics are covered.

    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 states a specific action ('Index and search documentation') on a specific resource ('ZIP archive URL'), which clearly distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'fetch_web_content'. It immediately tells an agent what the tool does and what input domain it operates on.

    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 intended usage is implied: use this when you have a ZIP archive URL containing documentation you want to query. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, nor any mention of the sibling tool 'fetch_web_content' as an alternative. The exclusion of alternatives is left to inference.

    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

sourcetap MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

sourcetap 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/maxvoltage/sourcetap'

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