Skip to main content
Glama
GMKR

mcp-image-generator

by GMKR
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

58%
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 'generate_image' has a clear and distinct purpose that cannot be confused with any other tool in this set.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The single tool name 'generate_image' follows a clear verb_noun pattern. Since there is only one tool, naming consistency is inherently perfect with no deviations or mixed conventions to evaluate.

    Tool Count2/5

    A single tool is too few for a server named 'mcp-image-generator', which suggests a broader scope for image generation tasks. While the tool covers basic generation, the count feels thin and lacks operations like editing, upscaling, or managing generated images that might be expected.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for an image generation domain. It only provides generation, with no coverage for common operations like editing images, adjusting parameters, retrieving generation history, or handling different formats, which will limit agent capabilities and cause workarounds.

  • 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 is failing

  • 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

  • Behavior3/5

    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 discloses that the image is 'returned as a base64 encoded string,' which adds useful behavioral context beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on potential limitations (e.g., rate limits, quality constraints, or error conditions), 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 front-loaded with the purpose and usage guidelines in two sentences, with no wasted words. However, the lack of punctuation between sentences ('promptUse this tool') slightly reduces readability, preventing a perfect score of 5.

    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 4 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and output format but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., performance, errors) and does not explain return values beyond the base64 string, leaving room for improvement.

    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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format or constraints for 'prompt' or 'width'). Thus, it meets the baseline of 3 but does not enhance parameter understanding.

    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: 'Generates and returns an image based on the provided prompt.' It specifies both the action (generate and return) and the resource (image). However, with no sibling tools provided, it cannot demonstrate differentiation from alternatives, which prevents a score of 5.

    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 includes explicit guidance: 'Use this tool when you need to generate an image based on a prompt.' This clearly indicates the primary use case. However, it lacks exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when not to use it or other tools for similar tasks), which prevents a score of 5.

    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

mcp-imagegen MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-imagegen 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/GMKR/mcp-imagegen'

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