Skip to main content
Glama
bhouston

mcp-server-text-editor

by bhouston
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
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 confusion or overlap between tools. The tool has a single, clear purpose for file editing with persistent state, making disambiguation trivial.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    A single tool named 'text_editor' follows a clear and consistent naming pattern. There are no other tools to compare against, so no inconsistency can exist.

    Tool Count2/5

    A single tool for a text editor server feels thin and under-scoped. While it covers basic file operations, typical text editors would benefit from additional tools for tasks like search/replace, formatting, or managing multiple files, making this count borderline inadequate.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for a text editor domain. It lacks essential operations such as search within files, undo/redo functionality, file management (e.g., rename, delete), or formatting options, which are core to text editing workflows.

  • Average 3.1/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

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

    • No issues in the last 6 months
    • No commit activity data available
    • 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

  • Behavior3/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'persistent state across command calls,' which is a useful behavioral trait not evident from the schema. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, file system interactions, or what 'persistent state' entails operationally. The description adds some value but leaves significant behavioral aspects unexplained.

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

    Conciseness3/5

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

    The description is two sentences: the first is front-loaded with core functionality, but the second sentence about being identical to another tool adds no value for tool selection and wastes space. It could be more concise by omitting the redundant second sentence.

    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?

    Given the complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers basic purpose and a behavioral trait (persistent state), but lacks details on usage context, error cases, or output expectations. For a multi-command tool with no output schema, more guidance would be helpful.

    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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

    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's purpose: 'View, create, and edit files with persistent state across command calls.' It specifies the actions (view, create, edit) and resource (files), and mentions the persistent state feature. However, it doesn't distinguish from siblings since there are none, and the second sentence about being identical to another tool adds no functional clarity.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions it's 'identical with Claude's built in text editor tool,' but this doesn't help an agent decide between this and other file manipulation tools. There are no explicit when/when-not scenarios or prerequisites described.

    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

mcp-server-text-editor MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-server-text-editor 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/bhouston/mcp-server-text-editor'

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