Skip to main content
Glama
FujishigeTemma

Typst MCP Server

by FujishigeTemma
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: browse for exploring the documentation hierarchy, read for accessing specific file content, and search for finding information by query. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent 'typst_verb' pattern (typst_browse, typst_read, typst_search), using snake_case and clear action verbs. This predictability enhances usability and reduces cognitive load.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of interacting with Typst documentation. Each tool serves a distinct and essential function (browse, read, search), and there are no extraneous tools, making the set efficient and focused.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool surface fully covers the core needs for documentation interaction: browsing the structure, reading specific content, and searching for information. This provides a complete workflow without gaps, allowing agents to navigate and retrieve documentation effectively.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 3 of 3 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

  • 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output format ('hierarchical tree') but doesn't describe what the tree contains, how it's structured, whether it's read-only, or any performance considerations like rate limits or data size. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely returns complex documentation data.

    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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any redundant information. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to understanding the tool's function.

    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 complexity of browsing documentation as a hierarchical tree, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tree output looks like, how to interpret it, or any behavioral traits, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without trial and error.

    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 schema already fully documents both parameters ('depth' and 'sub_directory') with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting 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 action ('browse') and resource ('Typst documentation structure') with the specific format 'as a hierarchical tree', which distinguishes it from typical file browsing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'typst_read' or 'typst_search' in terms of purpose.

    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 like 'typst_read' or 'typst_search'. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

    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 burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation but doesn't clarify what 'read' entails—whether it returns raw content, formatted text, metadata, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to understanding the 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?

    Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that reads documentation files. It doesn't explain what format the content is returned in, how errors are handled, or any limitations (e.g., file size, supported formats). For a read operation with no structured output documentation, this leaves the agent with insufficient context.

    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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'path' parameter documented as 'Relative path to the documentation file'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it 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 action ('Read') and resource ('Typst documentation file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'typst_browse' or 'typst_search', which likely also involve reading documentation content in different ways.

    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 its siblings ('typst_browse' and 'typst_search'). It doesn't mention prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from tool names alone.

    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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches documentation but doesn't describe how results are returned (e.g., format, pagination), performance traits (e.g., rate limits), or any constraints (e.g., search scope, authentication needs). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

    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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every part contributing to clarity.

    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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., links, summaries), how to interpret results, or any behavioral nuances. For a search tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, more context is needed to guide effective use.

    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, with the single parameter 'query' documented as a search term or phrase. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as syntax examples or search behavior details. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

    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 as searching through Typst documentation for topics, functions, or syntax, providing a specific verb ('search') and resource ('Typst documentation'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'typst_browse' or 'typst_read', which likely have related but distinct purposes.

    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 its siblings ('typst_browse' and 'typst_read'), nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative scenarios. Usage is implied through the action of searching, but explicit context is lacking.

    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

typst-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

typst-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/FujishigeTemma/typst-mcp'

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