Word Cloud Generator (word-cloud.net)
Server Details
Generate word clouds from text with custom fonts, colors, backgrounds, gradients, and shape masks
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
All three tools have identical core functionality (generating word clouds) and differ only in output format (URL, WebP image, SVG image). This creates significant ambiguity as an agent might struggle to choose between them without understanding the specific format requirements, and the descriptions don't clearly differentiate use cases beyond format type.
Tool names follow a perfectly consistent verb_noun pattern (generate_wordcloud, generate_wordcloud_image, generate_wordcloud_svg) with clear, predictable suffixes indicating output format. The naming convention is uniform and easily parsable.
Three tools is reasonable for a word cloud generator, as it covers multiple output formats. However, it feels slightly thin for a full-featured service, lacking tools for customization (e.g., color schemes, layout options) or management of generated content.
The toolset covers generation in three formats but lacks any customization parameters (like stop words, color palettes, or shape settings) or management operations (e.g., listing previous clouds, deleting). This creates notable gaps for advanced use cases, though basic generation is handled.
Available Tools
3 toolsgenerate_wordcloudAInspect
Generate a word cloud and return an embeddable URL. Data is sent to word-cloud.net servers for processing only and is not logged or stored.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bold | No | Use bold weight | |
| font | No | Font family. Built-in: Arial, Audiowide, Bangers, Black Ops One, Bungee, Caveat, Chewy, Comic Sans MS, Courier New, Creepster, Dancing Script, Fredoka One, Georgia, Great Vibes, Impact, Lobster, Luckiest Guy, MedievalSharp, Montserrat, Nosifer, Open Sans, Orbitron, Oswald, Pacifico, Passion One, Permanent Marker, Righteous, Roboto, Russo One, Satisfy, UnifrakturMaguntia. Or use any Google Font with googleFontsUrl. | Impact |
| mask | No | Shape mask preset constraining where words are placed | none |
| shape | No | Canvas shape | landscape |
| words | Yes | Array of words with weights. Higher weight = larger text. | |
| maskUrl | No | URL to a custom mask image (PNG, JPEG, SVG). Black areas define where words are placed. | |
| gradient | No | Background gradient. Mutually exclusive with backgroundColor. | |
| rotation | No | Word rotation mode | horizontal-vertical |
| colorMode | No | Color mode: 'palette' uses colorPalette colors, 'bw' is black & white, 'white' is all white text | palette |
| colorPalette | No | Color palette preset | rainbow |
| customColors | No | Custom hex color values (e.g. ["#ff0000", "#00ff00"]). Overrides colorPalette when provided. | |
| backgroundUrl | No | URL to a background image (PNG, JPEG, SVG). | |
| googleFontsUrl | No | Google Fonts CSS URL for custom fonts (e.g. https://fonts.googleapis.com/css2?family=Lobster&display=swap) | |
| backgroundColor | No | Solid background hex color (e.g. #1a034f). Omit for transparent. Mutually exclusive with gradient and backgroundPreset. | |
| backgroundPreset | No | Built-in background image preset | None |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully discloses the critical privacy/security behavior ('Data is sent to word-cloud.net servers for processing only and is not logged or stored'), informing the agent about external data sharing. However, it lacks details on rate limits, URL persistence, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences efficiently convey the essential information: the first defines the operation and output, the second provides privacy context. No wasted words, properly front-loaded with the action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high parameter complexity (15 params with nested objects) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers the critical gaps (output type and privacy). However, it could be strengthened with details on error behavior or the structure of the returned URL payload.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no specific parameter guidance beyond what's in the schema, but this is acceptable given the schema's comprehensiveness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the specific action ('Generate a word cloud') and the distinct output format ('return an embeddable URL'), which clearly distinguishes this tool from its siblings generate_wordcloud_image and generate_wordcloud_svg that presumably return raw image data rather than URLs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the output format ('embeddable URL') implies usage context (use when you need to embed via URL rather than raw image data), there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools or prerequisites for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
generate_wordcloud_imageAInspect
Generate a word cloud and return it as a WebP image. Data is sent to word-cloud.net servers for processing only and is not logged or stored.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bold | No | Use bold weight | |
| font | No | Font family. Built-in: Arial, Audiowide, Bangers, Black Ops One, Bungee, Caveat, Chewy, Comic Sans MS, Courier New, Creepster, Dancing Script, Fredoka One, Georgia, Great Vibes, Impact, Lobster, Luckiest Guy, MedievalSharp, Montserrat, Nosifer, Open Sans, Orbitron, Oswald, Pacifico, Passion One, Permanent Marker, Righteous, Roboto, Russo One, Satisfy, UnifrakturMaguntia. Or use any Google Font with googleFontsUrl. | Impact |
| mask | No | Shape mask preset constraining where words are placed | none |
| shape | No | Canvas shape | landscape |
| words | Yes | Array of words with weights. Higher weight = larger text. | |
| maskUrl | No | URL to a custom mask image (PNG, JPEG, SVG). Black areas define where words are placed. | |
| gradient | No | Background gradient. Mutually exclusive with backgroundColor. | |
| rotation | No | Word rotation mode | horizontal-vertical |
| colorMode | No | Color mode: 'palette' uses colorPalette colors, 'bw' is black & white, 'white' is all white text | palette |
| colorPalette | No | Color palette preset | rainbow |
| customColors | No | Custom hex color values (e.g. ["#ff0000", "#00ff00"]). Overrides colorPalette when provided. | |
| backgroundUrl | No | URL to a background image (PNG, JPEG, SVG). | |
| googleFontsUrl | No | Google Fonts CSS URL for custom fonts (e.g. https://fonts.googleapis.com/css2?family=Lobster&display=swap) | |
| backgroundColor | No | Solid background hex color (e.g. #1a034f). Omit for transparent. Mutually exclusive with gradient and backgroundPreset. | |
| backgroundPreset | No | Built-in background image preset | None |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds critical behavioral context that data is 'sent to word-cloud.net servers' with a privacy assurance ('not logged or stored'), which is vital for an external API call. It omits rate limits or error handling details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste: the first establishes purpose and output format, the second discloses the external processing and privacy policy. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complex schema (15 parameters, nested objects, 100% coverage), the description adequately covers the high-level purpose and privacy implications without needing to replicate parameter documentation. It could be strengthened by explicitly contrasting output formats with siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance (e.g., explaining the weight system or mask behavior) beyond what the schema already documents comprehensively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool 'Generate[s] a word cloud and return[s] it as a WebP image,' providing a specific verb, resource, and output format. The WebP format distinguishes it from sibling tools generate_wordcloud_svg and generate_wordcloud.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes that 'Data is sent to word-cloud.net servers,' which informs privacy-conscious usage, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus generate_wordcloud or generate_wordcloud_svg (e.g., raster vs. vector output preferences).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
generate_wordcloud_svgAInspect
Generate a word cloud and return it as an SVG image. Data is sent to word-cloud.net servers for processing only and is not logged or stored.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bold | No | Use bold weight | |
| font | No | Font family. Built-in: Arial, Audiowide, Bangers, Black Ops One, Bungee, Caveat, Chewy, Comic Sans MS, Courier New, Creepster, Dancing Script, Fredoka One, Georgia, Great Vibes, Impact, Lobster, Luckiest Guy, MedievalSharp, Montserrat, Nosifer, Open Sans, Orbitron, Oswald, Pacifico, Passion One, Permanent Marker, Righteous, Roboto, Russo One, Satisfy, UnifrakturMaguntia. Or use any Google Font with googleFontsUrl. | Impact |
| mask | No | Shape mask preset constraining where words are placed | none |
| shape | No | Canvas shape | landscape |
| words | Yes | Array of words with weights. Higher weight = larger text. | |
| maskUrl | No | URL to a custom mask image (PNG, JPEG, SVG). Black areas define where words are placed. | |
| gradient | No | Background gradient. Mutually exclusive with backgroundColor. | |
| rotation | No | Word rotation mode | horizontal-vertical |
| colorMode | No | Color mode: 'palette' uses colorPalette colors, 'bw' is black & white, 'white' is all white text | palette |
| colorPalette | No | Color palette preset | rainbow |
| customColors | No | Custom hex color values (e.g. ["#ff0000", "#00ff00"]). Overrides colorPalette when provided. | |
| backgroundUrl | No | URL to a background image (PNG, JPEG, SVG). | |
| googleFontsUrl | No | Google Fonts CSS URL for custom fonts (e.g. https://fonts.googleapis.com/css2?family=Lobster&display=swap) | |
| backgroundColor | No | Solid background hex color (e.g. #1a034f). Omit for transparent. Mutually exclusive with gradient and backgroundPreset. | |
| backgroundPreset | No | Built-in background image preset | None |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden and provides critical behavioral context: data is sent to external servers (word-cloud.net) with privacy guarantees ('not logged or stored'). However, missing operational details like rate limits, latency expectations, or whether the SVG is returned as raw XML versus a file reference.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences total with zero waste: first sentence establishes purpose and output format, second sentence discloses critical privacy/data handling information. Both sentences earn their place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for basic invocation given the comprehensive schema, but gaps remain for a complex 15-parameter external API tool. Missing: return value specification (raw SVG string vs base64), error handling behavior, rate limits, and maximum data size constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the structured schema fully documents all 15 parameters including nested objects. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, which is acceptable given the comprehensive schema, meriting the baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Generate a word cloud'), output format ('return it as an SVG image'), and implicitly distinguishes from siblings generate_wordcloud (likely metadata/JSON) and generate_wordcloud_image (likely raster format) by specifying SVG.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to choose this tool versus generate_wordcloud or generate_wordcloud_image. Missing explicit guidance such as 'use this when you need scalable vector graphics' or warnings about external data transmission.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!