Skip to main content
Glama
Text2Go

AI Humanizer MCP Server

by Text2Go
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The single tool 'detect' has a clearly defined purpose that cannot be confused with any other tool in this set.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    A single tool inherently demonstrates perfect naming consistency as there are no other tools to compare against. The tool name 'detect' follows a clear verb-based pattern appropriate for its function.

    Tool Count2/5

    A single tool is insufficient for most server purposes, creating a thin surface that limits agent capabilities. While the tool has a specific function, the server's scope appears to be AI text detection, which would typically benefit from additional related operations like analysis, comparison, or verification tools.

    Completeness2/5

    The server appears focused on AI text detection, but with only a detection tool, there are significant gaps in functionality. There's no way to analyze results, compare texts, verify human-written content, or perform related operations that would complete the AI-human text analysis domain.

  • Average 1.8/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No 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.

  • 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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions showing a task detail URL and extracting/concatenating a taskId, which suggests this tool performs both detection AND URL generation. However, it doesn't disclose what happens after detection (e.g., returns a score, classification, confidence), whether it makes external API calls, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness2/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is poorly structured - it starts with the core purpose but immediately mixes in implementation details about URL formatting. The second sentence about extracting taskId and concatenating links feels like internal implementation instructions rather than a clear tool description. It's not front-loaded with essential information.

    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?

    For a 3-parameter detection tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (just mentions showing a URL), doesn't clarify the detection mechanism, and doesn't provide context about the detectionTypeList options (COPYLEAKS vs HEMINGWAY). The URL formatting details seem like implementation noise rather than helpful context.

    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 undocumented parameters. The description mentions 'text' but doesn't explain what kind of text or length limits. It doesn't mention 'detectionTypeList' or 'type' parameters at all, leaving three parameters essentially unexplained beyond their schema definitions.

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

    Purpose2/5

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

    The description states 'Detect whether the text is AI-generated' which provides a basic purpose, but it's vague about the mechanism and immediately diverges into implementation details about URLs and task IDs. The title is null, and the description doesn't clearly distinguish this as a standalone detection tool versus part of a workflow.

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

    Usage Guidelines1/5

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

    No guidance on when to use this tool is provided. The description jumps straight to implementation details without explaining the context, prerequisites, or alternatives. There's no mention of when this detection would be appropriate versus other methods.

    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

ai-humanizer-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

ai-humanizer-mcp-server 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/Text2Go/ai-humanizer-mcp-server'

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