Skip to main content
Glama
ChrisTansey007

brand-asset-mcp

by ChrisTansey007
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

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: retrieving file paths, retrieving color palettes, and watermarking images. No overlap or ambiguity exists.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., get_brand_asset_paths), making them predictable and easy to understand.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 3 tools, the server covers a narrow range of operations. While not excessive, it feels thin for a brand asset server, bordering on insufficient for broader needs.

    Completeness2/5

    Obvious gaps exist: the server lacks tools for uploading, updating, or deleting assets, and returns only file paths rather than actual asset data. Core lifecycle operations are missing.

  • Average 3.5/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 2 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

  • 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?

    With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action but does not mention whether the original image is modified or a new file created, requirements for input, or side effects. Critical information is missing.

    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 sentence, which is concise but overly brief given the tool's complexity. Important information is omitted, so brevity is not a virtue here.

    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 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (whose content is unavailable but the description doesn't mention returns), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the output format, edge cases, or parameter constraints.

    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 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, yet the description adds nothing about parameter meaning beyond their names. For example, 'theme' and 'watermark_text' have defaults but no explanation of valid values or format. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

    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: overlaying a brand banner and watermark onto an image. It uses a specific verb ('overlay') and resource ('graphic or photo'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve assets or palettes.

    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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_brand_asset_paths) or prerequisites such as input image format or permissions. An agent would have no context for appropriate invocation.

    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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the retrieval action and theme options, omitting any details about output format, error conditions, or side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

    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, front-loaded with the action 'Retrieve color palette'. It uses no unnecessary words and is highly efficient. 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?

    The tool is simple with one parameter, and the description covers its core purpose and allowed values. The presence of an output schema (though not shown) reduces the need for return-value details. The description is adequately complete for this low-complexity 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?

    The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for the 'theme' parameter. It lists four explicit string examples (paper_and_ink, navy_band, coastal_marine, engineering), effectively defining the allowed values. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 retrieves a color palette for specific themes. It lists four named themes, making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like get_brand_asset_paths and watermark_image, which have different functions.

    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 fetching a color palette for the listed themes, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. No exclusions or when-not-to-use context is given, leaving the agent to infer utility from the theme list.

    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 provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses it returns absolute file paths for specific asset types, but does not describe output format, authentication needs, or error handling. Basic disclosure but missing details.

    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?

    Single sentence, under 20 words, front-loaded with purpose. No redundant information.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    Given 0 parameters and presence of output schema, description is complete. It specifies what the tool retrieves and the type of output (file paths). No gaps.

    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?

    The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. Schema already covers everything, so no added value needed from description. Baseline 4 for 0 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 verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'absolute file paths to all Tropical Tides logos, banners, watermarks, and social media icons.' It distinguishes from siblings: get_brand_palette (palette colors) and watermark_image (applying watermark).

    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 file paths to brand assets are needed, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or alternatives. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

    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

brand-asset-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

brand-asset-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/ChrisTansey007/brand-asset-mcp'

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