Skip to main content
Glama

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.
  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The single tool 'generateImage' has a clear, distinct purpose for image generation and editing.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The tool name 'generateImage' follows a consistent verb_noun pattern, and with only one tool, there is no inconsistency to evaluate. The naming is clear and appropriate for its function.

    Tool Count2/5

    A single tool is too few for the server's purpose of image generation and editing, as it lacks coverage for related operations like listing generated images, managing settings, or handling errors. This minimal set limits agent functionality and feels incomplete for the domain.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for an image generation server. While 'generateImage' covers creation and editing, there are obvious gaps such as no tools for retrieving past images, deleting images, or configuring generation parameters, which are essential for a full workflow.

  • Average 3.6/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available
  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
      "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
      "maintainers": [
        "your-github-username"
      ]
    }

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • 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 valuable context beyond the input schema by describing automatic browser opening, return of a clickable link, and support for two modes. However, it does not cover important behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format details, leaving gaps 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.

    Conciseness4/5

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

    The description is well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core functionality and then detailing modes and responses. Most sentences add value, but the final promotional sentence ('Visit our website...') is extraneous and does not aid tool selection or invocation, slightly reducing efficiency.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool's complexity (image generation with two modes), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, usage modes, and some behavioral aspects (browser opening, link return), but lacks details on output structure, error cases, or operational constraints, which are important for a tool without structured output documentation.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters (imageBase64 and prompt) adequately. The description adds marginal value by explaining the two modes that correspond to these parameters, but it does not provide additional syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema states. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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

    Purpose4/5

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

    The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate images using the 4o-image API' and specifies it 'automatically opens the results in your browser.' It distinguishes between text-to-image and image editing modes, providing specific functionality details. However, without sibling tools, differentiation from alternatives is not applicable, preventing a perfect score.

    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 outlining two modes (text-to-image and image editing) and indicating when to use each based on whether an imageBase64 parameter is provided. It mentions that the tool opens results in the browser and returns a clickable link, offering practical guidance. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to alternatives, as no sibling tools exist.

    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

4oimage-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

4oimage-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/Antipas/4oimage-mcp'

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