Skip to main content
Glama
0PValencia

app-screenshot-mcp

by 0PValencia
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.1

  • Disambiguation4/5

    The tools are clearly distinguished by their purpose: one captures a public URL, the other handles form-based authentication before capturing. Though both ultimately produce screenshots, the workflow differs enough to avoid confusion.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tool names start with 'capture_' and follow a verb-led pattern. The second name uses a prepositional phrase ('with_login') but it remains readable and consistent in style.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server feels minimal. This is borderline for a narrow purpose but is not egregiously thin; the two covered scenarios (public and authenticated) justify the count.

    Completeness3/5

    The domain is screenshot capture, and the two tools cover basic capture and authenticated capture. However, there are minor gaps such as no support for element screenshots, cookie injection, or alternative rendering options, which agents might need but can work around.

  • Average 3.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.

    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 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.

  • 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 present, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions opening a URL and saving a screenshot but fails to disclose behaviors such as page load waiting, network dependencies, file system writes, error handling, or how the output is returned. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure.

    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 a single succinct sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It avoids fluff, but it is so brief that it sacrifices informative content. Still, it is appropriately structured for quick parsing.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness1/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is grossly insufficient. It provides no information about return values, side effects, failure modes, or parameter interactions, making it nearly impossible for an agent to invoke correctly beyond the simplest cases.

    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 only 14%, with only 'selector' having a description. The tool description only adds 'viewport configurable', which covers the width and height parameters indirectly. waitMs, fullPage, selector, and outputPath semantics are not explained in either the schema or the description, leaving major gaps.

    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 the tool opens a URL and saves a PNG screenshot with a configurable viewport, which is a specific verb+resource+output. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling tool 'capture_with_login', relying on the name to imply the difference.

    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?

    No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus 'capture_with_login' or any other alternatives. The description does not mention the absence of login handling or any prerequisites, so an agent has no basis for selecting it over the sibling.

    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 present, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the main steps (fill selectors, submit form, capture), but it does not mention failure modes, what happens after login, or the output format. This is adequate but not rich.

    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 concise sentences, front-loaded with action and purpose. Every word earns its place, with no padding or redundancy.

    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?

    The tool has 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description barely covers the core workflow and omits crucial context like how to direct output, behavior after login, and customization of selectors. It is incomplete for practical use.

    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 must compensate for parameter meaning. It only generically mentions 'selectores CSS' and does not explain parameters like afterLoginUrlIncludes, width, height, outputPath, or the default selectors. Most of the 11 parameters remain undocumented.

    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 it fills username/password in CSS selectors, submits the form, and captures. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from the sibling 'capture_url' by explicitly mentioning authentication.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines4/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    It explicitly marks the tool as 'Útil para dashboards autenticados' (useful for authenticated dashboards), providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives for non-authenticated cases, but the sibling context implies it, so it stops short of a 5.

    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

app-screenshot-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

app-screenshot-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/0PValencia/app-screenshot-mcp'

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