mega-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation: browsing folders, reading file contents, searching file names, searching file contents, transcribing audio, and extracting video metadata. There is no overlap, as even the two search tools are clearly separated by scope (names vs. content).
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools share the 'mega_' prefix and use snake_case, but the pattern is slightly inconsistent: most are verb or verb_noun (browse, read_file, search, search_content, transcribe), while 'video_info' is a noun phrase. Otherwise predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for accessing public MEGA folders. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count is neither too sparse nor too heavy for the domain.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers the core workflows for a read-only MEGA access server: browsing, reading text/PDF files, searching by name and content, transcribing audio, and probing video metadata. No obvious gaps exist for the intended use case.
Average 4/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 7 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

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explicitly states 'Streams only the header, not the whole file,' which is a key efficiency trait. It also mentions using ffprobe. Additional behavioral details (e.g., error handling, size limits) are absent, but the core safety and performance implication is conveyed.
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: the first states the purpose and typical metadata fields, the second gives input conventions. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded with the most critical 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 (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, method, behavioral trait, and input conventions. It also lists typical output fields, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. Minor gaps: no explicit mention of return format structure or error conditions, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the relationship between path and link ('Provide path within a folder link or a direct file link'), and implies that raw includes full ffprobe JSON. This goes beyond the schema's basic 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 that the tool probes technical metadata using ffprobe, and enumerates typical fields (duration, resolution, codecs, bitrate, fps). It distinguishes itself from siblings like mega_read_file and mega_transcribe by focusing on metadata extraction, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.
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 input usage instructions (path within folder link or direct link) but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as mega_transcribe for audio transcription or mega_read_file for content reading. The agent receives no decision support for tool selection.
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 full burden. It discloses that the tool is disabled by default, requires backend configuration, downloads the file, extracts/segments audio with ffmpeg, and sends to backend. This is good transparency, though it omits rate limits or response format.
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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds information without fluff, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., grouping prerequisites).
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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the process and prerequisites but does not specify the output format (beyond 'to text') or whether results are returned directly. Somewhat 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds specific context for maxMinutes ('transcribe only the start of a long file'), but other parameters are already well-described in the schema. The added value is minimal.
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 verb ('Transcribe') and resource ('spoken audio from a video/audio file'), and this purpose is distinct from sibling tools (e.g., mega_browse, mega_read_file) which are not transcription-related.
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 mentions the OPT-IN requirement and provides a usage hint for maxMinutes, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when to use this tool vs. others. The sibling tools are unrelated, so context is implied.
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?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does: it searches the entire tree, supports regex with the `regex` flag, and is case-insensitive. It omits details like output format, pagination, or authentication, but for a read-oriented search tool, it is fairly transparent.
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 sentence (22 words) that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word earns its place.
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 is adequate for a search tool but lacks details about the return format (list of files/folders? paths? names?). With no output schema, these details would be helpful. It covers parameter semantics well but misses output 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?
Schema coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by clarifying the default link value and explaining the regex flag, but repeats schema info. 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 clearly states it searches a public MEGA link's entire tree for files/folders by name, using case-insensitive substring or regex. This distinguishes it from siblings like mega_search_content (content search) and mega_browse (browsing structure).
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 filename-based searches but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., mega_search_content for content search) or when not to use it. No exclusions or context are provided.
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, description carries full burden. It discloses that search uses regex capability and includes PDF handling, but does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the tool is destructive (not needed). Returns are described as 'line snippets', which is helpful. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first defines core purpose, second adds optimization detail. Every word is useful. No fluff.
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 search tool with 6 params and no output schema, the description covers main behavior, regex, PDF handling, and performance. Could mention maxFiles and maxMatchesPerFile bounds or result format, but overall adequate.
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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining 'line snippets' (not in schema), noting default includePdf=true, and the performance implication of including PDFs. This goes beyond the schema's bare descriptions.
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?
Description clearly states verb ('Search'), resource ('text files and PDFs under a MEGA folder link'), action ('for a query string or regex'), and output ('Returns matching files with line snippets'). Distinguishes from siblings like mega_search (likely broader) and mega_read_file (reads a file, does not search).
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?
Description implies use when full-text search inside files is needed, and notes performance tip ('set includePdf:false to skip them (faster)'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus siblings like mega_search (which may search by filename) or mega_browse (directory listing). No 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?
No annotations provided, but description discloses read-only behavior (list), output fields, and parameter effects. Adequate transparency for a listing 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?
Three concise sentences: purpose, parameter usage, and output. Front-loaded with no wasted words.
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?
Covers essential output fields. Lacks mention of error handling or pagination, but sufficient for a folder listing tool with sibling differentiation.
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 covers all parameters with descriptions; description adds context on usage (recursive for tree, path for subfolder). Adds value beyond 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?
Clearly states verb 'List' and resource 'files and folders in a public MEGA folder link'. Distinguishes from siblings like mega_read_file and mega_search by specifying listing a folder's contents.
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?
Provides guidance on parameters: 'Use recursive to walk the entire tree, or path to scope into a subfolder.' Does not explicitly exclude alternatives but implies usage scope.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses caps (MEGA_MAX_READ_BYTES, MEGA_MAX_PDF_BYTES), PDF extraction, and binary rejection. Additional transparency on error handling or permissions would improve.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with action and resource. Efficiently covers purpose, constraints, and parameter usage.
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 no output schema, description mentions return of text contents. Covers caps and rejections. Missing details on error responses, but overall adequate for a read 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 describes all 3 parameters (100% coverage). Description adds meaning by explaining how path and link relate, and notes maxBytes as an override. Adds value beyond 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 it downloads and returns text contents, extracts PDFs, and requires a path or link. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mega_browse and mega_search.
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 specifies when to use (for text/PDF files) and what is rejected (binary files). It does not explicitly name alternatives but implies context.
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:

[![mega-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Anicodeth/mega-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Anicodeth/mega-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mega-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Anicodeth/mega-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Anicodeth/mega-mcp)

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/Anicodeth/mega-mcp'

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