fast-html-mcp

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.2
Disambiguation3/5
There is some overlap between tools like patch_html and set_attribute (both modify elements via CSS selectors), and write_raw_html vs write_html_file both write HTML but with unclear distinction. However, most tools have clearly defined purposes targeting different aspects (sections, templates, components), so the ambiguity is limited.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent lower_snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_components, render_page, check_consistency). Verbs are clear and nouns align with the object acted upon, making the naming predictable and readable.
Tool Count3/5
With 19 tools, the set is on the heavy side (16-25). While each tool has a specific role, the number feels slightly excessive for HTML manipulation, especially given the overlapping edit/write tools that could potentially be consolidated.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers creation, reading, editing, rendering, and template/component management comprehensively. The main gap is the lack of delete/removal operations (e.g., delete_element or remove_section), but core workflows are well-supported.
Average 3.3/5 across 19 of 19 tools scored. Lowest: 2.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 16 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on May 22, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under GPL 3.0.
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 must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to state that the tool writes a file to output_path, whether it overwrites existing files, requires an existing template, or has any other side effects. The term 'assemble' is too abstract to convey the concrete behavior.
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 a single sentence, but its brevity is the result of under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It omits critical information about the tool's inputs, outputs, and behavior, making it more a placeholder than a useful definition.
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 tool with 6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the assembly workflow, return value, prerequisites, or how the parameters interact. The schema provides some parameter documentation, but the description adds no contextual guidance to make the tool usable.
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?
The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's existing descriptions. Schema coverage is 67% (template, sections, output_path, entity_annotations have descriptions), but budget and options remain undocumented in both the schema and description. The phrase 'structured components' only vaguely hints at the sections parameter without clarifying its structure or required fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Assemble page from structured components' provides a verb ('assemble') and a resource ('page'), but is vague about what 'assemble' produces (an HTML file) and how it relates to the structured components. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like write_html_file or patch_html, which also deal with building or editing HTML pages.
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 information is given about when to use render_page versus alternative tools. The sibling list includes many related tools (write_html_file, patch_html, insert_section, etc.), but the description offers no context, exclusions, or selection criteria, leaving the agent without usage guidance.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that it writes to a file. It does not mention overwriting behavior, file creation, encoding, or how parameters like 'options' and 'budget' affect the operation, leaving significant gaps.
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 a single concise sentence, but it is under-specified for a tool with six parameters and nested objects. It omits essential information, so the brevity is not appropriate for the tool's complexity.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (6 params, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the 'raw' concept, the role of template/content/html, or how to use the tool correctly, providing almost no contextual value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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, but it provides no parameter details. The six parameters, including nested objects like 'options' and 'budget', are left entirely unexplained, making it impossible to know their roles or formats.
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 verb 'write' and the resource 'raw HTML content' to a file, providing a specific purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like 'write_html_file', leaving potential ambiguity about the difference between 'raw' and 'file' writing.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'write_html_file' or 'format_html'. The term 'raw' implies a use case for unformatted content, but this is not made explicit, and no exclusions or alternative scenarios are mentioned.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (format/beautify) but does not clarify whether the file is overwritten in place, whether a formatted copy is returned, what side effects occur (e.g., line endings, encoding), or any permission/error behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely mutates a file.
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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the core action and target. It is front-loaded and free of filler. However, it is so brief that it could be considered under-specification rather than concise efficiency; adding a second sentence with usage or side-effect details would improve it without losing conciseness.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, nested options object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. An agent has no information about return values, side effects, option semantics, or error handling. This is a minimal viable description at best, likely leading to misuse.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining any parameters. The required 'file_path' and the 'options' object (with 'max_tokens' and 'compression') are completely unexplained. An agent cannot know what values are valid, what 'compression' means in the context of HTML formatting, or how 'max_tokens' affects behavior.
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 action (format/beautify) and target (an existing HTML file), which distinguishes it from siblings like patch_html or write_html_file. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from potential alternatives with similar formatting capabilities, and the phrase 'existing' could mean either modify in place or format and return, which is slightly ambiguous.
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 does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another sibling tool would be more appropriate. The only implicit cue is the tool name and the brief action phrase, which is insufficient for an agent to decide between format_html and tools like edit_html_range or write_html_file.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that content is written as a formatted HTML file, but does not mention whether the file is overwritten, whether formatting is applied automatically, what happens to existing files, or any side effects. This is minimal and insufficient for safe invocation.
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, concise sentence with the verb placed first, making it easy to parse. It contains no extraneous words. However, it is under-specified for a tool of this complexity, so while concise, it is not optimally structured for usability.
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?
Given the tool's high complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It lacks any information about return values, error conditions, parameter interactions, or the formatting process, making it inadequate for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and there are 6 parameters including a nested options object. The description adds no meaning to any parameter, failing to clarify the roles of 'html', 'content', 'template', 'budget', 'options', or 'output_path'. It does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 states a specific verb ('Write') and resource ('formatted HTML file'), clearly indicating the tool's basic function. The word 'formatted' provides some differentiation from sibling tools like write_raw_html, though it does not explicitly name them or clarify the formatting behavior.
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 such as write_raw_html, format_html, or patch_html. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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 behavioral disclosure. The term 'patch' is ambiguous—it does not clarify whether the html parameter replaces the entire element, inner content, or applies a diff. There is no mention of destructiveness, reversibility, permissions, or side effects, which is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It immediately states the action and target, and every word contributes to the basic meaning.
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 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, and it operates among many similar sibling tools. The description omits crucial context about the patch semantics, whether all matching elements or only the first are affected, and whether the operation is destructive. This is too minimal for an agent to reliably select and invoke the tool.
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 explain parameter semantics. It hints that 'selector' is a CSS selector and 'html' is likely the new content, but it fails to clarify the exact format of the 'html' patch (full replacement, fragment, etc.) and does not address 'file_path' beyond its obvious role. This is insufficient given the lack of schema descriptions.
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 action ('Patch') and the target ('HTML element(s)'), and specifies the selection mechanism ('by CSS selector'). It distinguishes from siblings like set_attribute (which modifies attributes) and edit_html_range (which edits by range), though the term 'patch' could be more precise about what kind of modification is performed.
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 patch_html versus alternatives like edit_html_range, insert_section, or write_raw_html. No exclusions, prerequisites, or situational context are mentioned.
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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies mutation via 'set', but does not explain side effects like whether the file is modified in-place, behavior when the selector matches no elements, or whether existing attributes are overwritten.
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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no wasted wording 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?
This tool has 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The one-line description does not cover parameter semantics, return values, error conditions, or side effects, making it incomplete for the tool's complexity.
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. It explains 'selector' and 'attribute' implicitly, but does not mention 'file_path' or explicitly state that 'value' is the new attribute value. The described behavior is only partially mapped to the parameters.
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 the action ('Set'), the resource ('attribute on element(s)'), and the method ('by CSS selector'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle broader HTML manipulation like patch_html or edit_html_range.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as patch_html or edit_html_range. There are no prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions mentioned.
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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key non-destructive trait ('without writing'), but does not explain what the preview returns, whether any resources are consumed, or other behaviors. This adds value but lacks depth.
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 a single concise sentence, but it is under-specified for the tool's complexity. It has no fluff, but also lacks sufficient structure or detail to be highly useful.
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?
The tool has a complex schema with nested objects and multiple input modes, but no output schema or annotations. The one-sentence description does not explain the inputs, output format, or constraints, making it insufficient for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the six parameters. It does not compensate for the schema gap, leaving users to guess the meaning of 'html', 'content', 'template', 'sections', 'options', and 'budget'.
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 the tool's function: preview a rendered HTML string without writing. This distinguishes it from sibling write tools like write_raw_html and write_html_file, and from read/format tools. The verb 'preview' and scope 'without writing' are specific and unambiguous.
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?
The phrase 'without writing' provides clear context that this tool is for non-destructive previewing, implying when to use it over write-oriented tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that all transitively affected sections are updated, which is a key behavior, but it omits side effects (e.g., whether it modifies multiple files, handles conflicts, or if the operation is reversible). There is no mention of failure modes, prerequisites, or what the response indicates.
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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and outcome. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise for the tool's purpose.
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?
This tool appears to be complex (dependency graph propagation) and has no output schema or annotations. The one-sentence description does not explain what an 'entity' is, how the dependency graph is constructed, what 'transitively affected sections' means operationally, or what the return value indicates. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and edge cases.
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?
The input schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters (file_path, section_selector, old_value, new_value), achieving 100% coverage. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the action (propagate), the resource (entity edit), and the scope (through the dependency graph, updating all transitively affected sections). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like patch_html or edit_section, which directly edit HTML. However, 'entity edit' is somewhat abstract, so it doesn't fully nail down exactly what kind of edits are in scope.
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 description implies when to use the tool: whenever an entity edit needs to propagate through a dependency graph. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tools should be used instead for direct or localized edits. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternatives.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a read operation ('Get') but does not mention side effects, error conditions, permissions, or the structure of the returned schema, which is insufficient for a complete behavioral picture.
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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. It contains no fluff and effectively communicates the tool's core purpose without redundancy.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives a basic understanding of the tool's purpose but does not elaborate on return values, prerequisites, or failure modes. It is minimally sufficient but lacks the richness needed for full contextual completeness.
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?
The input schema covers the only parameter ('name') with a clear description ('Component name'), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 the action ('Get') and the resource ('component schema'), and 'with available props' clarifies the scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_template_schema by specifying 'component'.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_template_schema or list_components. The description does not mention any context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
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?
The description provides no behavioral details beyond the read-like action implied by 'Get.' With no annotations available, the description does not clarify what happens for missing templates, return format specifics, or any side effects. It only states what is included, not behavior or guarantees.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose and adds one useful qualifier. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is adequate but minimal. It hints at return content (variables with defaults) but does not fully specify the metadata structure or error behavior. The lack of an output schema places more burden on the description, yet it covers the core function cleanly.
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?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'name' with description 'Template name.' The description adds minimal extra meaning, only reinforcing that the template is identified by name. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no additional parameter semantics are offered.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies a distinct resource ('template metadata') with a clarifying detail ('including available variables with defaults'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_component_schema and list_templates, which focus on components or merely listing templates.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions like 'when you need variable details' or exclude cases like 'do not use for component schemas.' Usage context is only implied by the name, not stated.
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. 'Audit' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly disclose side effects, output format, or whether any changes are made. This is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
For a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a clear purpose but lacks usage context and behavioral transparency. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps about expected behavior and outputs.
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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond implying that file_path is the document to audit and mode selects the audit type, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses the specific verb 'Audit' with a clear resource and scope: 'document for stale cross-section references and dependency violations.' This differentiates it from sibling tools that edit or read HTML.
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 description implies usage for consistency auditing but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not state when to run this vs. other tools, though it is the only audit tool among siblings.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List' and mentions the optional filter, but does not specify that the operation is read-only, whether it returns all components or only a subset, any permission requirements, or the return format. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotations and no output schema.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and mentions the optional filter. Every word adds value, with no wasted or redundant phrasing.
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?
For a simple listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter. However, it lacks details about what the returned list contains, any ordering, or limitations, and with no annotations, the agent is left without a complete picture of the tool's behavior.
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?
The schema already provides 100% coverage of the single parameter, describing the category filter with valid values. The description only repeats 'optionally filter by category' without adding further meaning, so it stays at the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 the action ('List') and the resource ('available interactive components'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_sections and list_templates. The optional filter adds scope without ambiguity.
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 description implies usage for listing components and optionally filtering by category, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_sections or list_templates. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer based on the resource name.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Register' implies a mutating operation, but the description does not mention whether the registration is persistent, what happens if the template name already exists, any permission requirements, or what the return value looks like. This is a significant gap for a write operation.
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 a single, concise, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any wasted words. It earns a top score for efficiency and clarity.
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 has 5 parameters but the schema covers them all. The description explains the immediate-use purpose but does not mention return values or error conditions. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete for a mutating operation.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, but it does contextualize the html_template parameter by mentioning render_page/preview_html. Per the baseline, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific action (register) on a specific resource (a custom template) at a specific time (runtime) for a specific purpose (use with render_page/preview_html). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_templates or get_template_schema.
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?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: when you need a custom template available immediately for render_page/preview_html. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description should carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it replaces lines, which is inherent to the tool, and gives a usage hint. It does not disclose side effects, error handling, or any requirements (e.g., file existence, valid line ranges), leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.
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 a single concise sentence with a parenthetical hint. Every word earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded with the additional efficiency insight placed as a secondary note. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple range-replacement tool, the description covers the essential purpose and the key usage advantage (token efficiency). The schema provides line-indexing details, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. However, it lacks any note about behavior on invalid ranges or whether the file must pre-exist, which would be useful given the absence of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While the schema already describes start_line, end_line, and new_content, the description adds the crucial clarification 'send only the changed lines', which explains what new_content should contain. This goes beyond the schema, which only says 'Replacement content for the specified lines'. Coverage is 75%, and the description compensates meaningfully for the ambiguous new_content parameter.
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 the action ('Replace a range of lines') and the resource ('in an HTML file'), making the tool's function immediately obvious. The parenthetical 'most token-efficient edit' further differentiates it from sibling editing tools by highlighting its unique value proposition.
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 description implies when to use the tool ('most token-efficient edit — send only the changed lines'), providing a clear context for selection. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose any potential side effects, required permissions, return format, pagination, or behavior when no templates exist. It adds only the optional filter detail already present in the schema.
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 a single, concise sentence of eight words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and contains no filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately communicates the purpose and filter capability. It could be enhanced by stating that it returns a list of template shells and possibly including typical use cases, but for a simple list operation, it is sufficiently 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 100% for the single optional 'category' parameter. The description's mention of filtering by category adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already explains allowed values. Thus the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'available template shells', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_components or list_sections. It also mentions the optional filter, making the scope precise.
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 description implies usage when template shells need to be listed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling list tools (e.g., list_components) or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing side effects: 'pushing existing sections forward' and 'auto-renumbers all subsequent sections.' This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent anticipate the tool's impact. It omits error cases or permissions but covers core behavioral traits.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. It avoids fluff and uses precise terms like 'index', 'pushing forward', and 'renumbers.'
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 description explains purpose and side effects but lacks return-value or error-handling details, which is relevant given no output schema. It does not cover prerequisites like whether file_path must exist. Considering the moderate complexity and decent parameter documentation, it is adequate but incomplete.
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 coverage is 80% and the section_index description already explains the push-forward behavior. The description reinforces this and ties the 'component' parameter to the section concept, but adds little new meaning for file_path or props. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
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 the action ('Insert a new component section at a specific index'), the resource ('component section'), and the positional behavior ('pushing existing sections forward'). It also distinguishes from siblings by referencing the section marker system and auto-renumbering, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 description implies when to use this tool (when adding a new section at a specific position) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria. The reference to 'same section marker system as render_page' provides context but no direct comparison to edit_section or other siblings.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the tool 'Read/analyze existing HTML file,' implying a non-destructive operation, and offers insight into text mode with offset/limit progressive reading. However, it does not disclose the return format, the behavior of the other modes (structure, content, compressed), or any potential errors or side effects. This is a partial disclosure but not comprehensive.
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 a single concise sentence that pairs a clear purpose with a valuable usage hint. It is front-loaded with the core function ('Read/analyze existing HTML file') and immediately follows with actionable mode guidance. There is no redundant information or filler.
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 has no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns or how the different modes behave. It does convey the basic read/analyze function and hints at text mode's efficiency, but it omits return value details and the behavior of the other three modes. Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, enum), the description is adequate but incomplete without further elaboration.
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 50% (limit and offset have descriptions). The description adds value by explaining that mode='text' is token-efficient and that offset/limit are used for progressive reading in text mode. However, it does not clarify the meaning of 'file_path' (though self-evident) or the semantics of the other mode values (structure, content, compressed). Thus it partially compensates for the schema's gaps but does not fully elaborate on all parameters.
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 uses a specific verb+resource combination: 'Read/analyze existing HTML file.' This clearly identifies the tool as a reading/analysis operation on HTML files, distinctly separating it from the sibling tools which are all editing, writing, or rendering operations (e.g., patch_html, write_html_file, preview_html). The emphasis on 'existing' further reinforces its read-only nature.
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?
The description provides clear usage context by recommending 'Use mode='text' for token-efficient plain text extraction with offset/limit progressive reading.' This gives actionable guidance on parameter selection. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, the sibling context (all write/edit tools) makes the read-oriented use case obvious. The lack of explicit exclusions is a minor gap.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the section-marker mechanism and the two operational modes (component+props vs html). However, it does not disclose whether the replacement is a permanent file modification, what happens to existing content, or any side effects like index shifting. This is a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.
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?
Four short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, context, discovery method, and the two replacement modes. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids any fluff or repetition of schema details.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core usage but omits important details such as whether the file is modified in-place, what the return value is, and how section indices behave after edits. The mention of list_sections hints at dynamic indices but does not explicitly warn about index instability. This leaves gaps for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is high (80%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds key semantic value by clarifying that component+props is the re-rendering path while html is for raw insertion, which is not evident from the schema alone. It also ties section_index to the list_sections discovery step, giving operational context beyond the schema's bare description.
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 the tool's function: 'Replace a rendered section in an HTML file with a new component.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing section markers and the two replacement modes (component+props vs raw HTML), and directs users to list_sections for discovery. This is specific and unambiguous.
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?
The description provides clear usage context: it applies to pages rendered with render_page, and it explicitly instructs users to 'Use list_sections to discover available indices.' It also explains the choice between component+props and raw html. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., in favor of patch_html for non-section edits), so it lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It describes a read-only listing operation and discloses the return content (indices, types, sizes). The render_page precondition is also stated, adding useful context beyond the schema. It lacks edge-case details but is adequate for a simple list tool.
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 a single sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the primary action and includes return information efficiently. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core aspects: purpose, precondition (render_page), and returned data. It lacks explicit differentiation from list_components, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
The schema provides zero description coverage for file_path. The description adds meaning by indicating it is an HTML file path and must be a render_page output. However, it does not specify path format or validation details, so the compensation is only partial.
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 the action (List) and the resource (component sections in an HTML file built with render_page). It also specifies the returned data (section indices, component types, sizes), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_components that likely focus on a different granularity.
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?
The description provides a clear context: it is for HTML files built with render_page. This implies when the tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude cases, 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

Copy to your README.md:

[![OpenTalk2HTML-NotMD MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Aimino-Tech/OpenTalk2HTML-NotMD/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Aimino-Tech/OpenTalk2HTML-NotMD)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![OpenTalk2HTML-NotMD MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Aimino-Tech/OpenTalk2HTML-NotMD/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Aimino-Tech/OpenTalk2HTML-NotMD)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/Aimino-Tech/OpenTalk2HTML-NotMD'

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