Skip to main content
Glama
Alvnvnc

VisualDoc

by Alvnvnc
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one for comparing versions via diff, the other for extracting a single page image. There is no overlap.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with the 'doc_' prefix: doc_diff_versions and doc_get_page_image.

    Tool Count2/5

    Only two tools are provided for a documentation visualization server. The description references a primary tool (doc_render_report) that is not included, making the surface too thin for its stated purpose.

    Completeness1/5

    The primary signal for the server (the deterministic report without images) is missing as a tool. There is no way to get the main report, only a diff and a page image, leaving a severe gap in coverage.

  • Average 3.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 6 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, mutates data, requires permissions, or has rate limits. 'Render two DOCX versions' suggests a read operation, but there is no explicit statement about behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

    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 sentence that fronts the main action and diff outputs. It is concise and avoids redundancy, but could be improved by structuring with bullet points or clearer separation of actions and outputs.

    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?

    Given the tool has three parameters (two required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return format, behavior on errors, prerequisites (e.g., document existence), or what 'layout reports' are. The provided detail about diff outputs is helpful but insufficient for full understanding.

    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 input schema has three parameters ('before', 'after', 'rules') with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter, leaving the agent to infer what 'before' and 'after' refer to (version identifiers?) and what 'rules' controls. This is a significant gap for a tool with no output schema.

    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 renders two DOCX versions and diffs their layout reports, listing specific outputs like resolved/regressed items, page-count delta, and severity count deltas. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'doc_get_page_image'.

    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 the tool is for comparing DOCX versions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The sibling tool 'doc_get_page_image' is different, but no direct comparison or when-not-to-use is given.

    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, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It mentions that dpi is clamped (36-300), on failure returns a structured {ok:false, error}, and that images are costly. However, it does not specify whether the tool is read-only or any side effects, though the 'render' action implies no mutation.

    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 concise with three sentences. It front-loads the purpose, adds usage guidance, and finishes with behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place without 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 description fails to explain the success return format (presumably a PNG image). Without an output schema, the agent does not know what to expect on success. It also omits document input constraints (e.g., valid DOCX). Given the tool's complexity and no output schema, the description is 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?

    The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds clamping info for 'dpi' and implies 'page' refers to a single page, but does not clarify page numbering (0- or 1-indexed) or the format of 'document' (path/ID). The description adds value but leaves gaps.

    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 renders one DOCX page to a PNG for visual inspection, using a specific verb ('render') and resource ('DOCX page'). It differentiates from sibling tool 'doc_diff_versions' by noting this is an optional visual channel, while the primary signal is 'doc_render_report'.

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

    Usage Guidelines5/5

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

    The description explicitly advises 'use sparingly' due to image cost, contrasts with the deterministic 'doc_render_report' as the primary signal, and directs to documentation for further guidance. This clearly tells the agent when and when not to use this tool.

    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

visualdoc-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

visualdoc-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/Alvnvnc/visualdoc-mcp'

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