mern-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation3/5
list_resources, delete_resource, and add_field are clearly distinct, but scaffold_resource already supports previewing or applying a write plan, making preview_scaffold semantically overlapping. Descriptions help clarify intent, but an agent could easily pick the wrong tool for a preview action.
Naming Consistency5/5
All five tool names follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern: scaffold/list/preview/delete/add + resource/scaffold/field. The only minor variance is singular vs. plural objects (list_resources vs. delete_resource), but no convention mixing occurs.
Tool Count4/5
Five tools is a reasonable scope for managing MERN scaffolds, not bloated. However, preview_scaffold is arguably redundant with scaffold_resource's preview mode, so the set is slightly looser than ideal.
Completeness3/5
The main lifecycle is covered: scaffold a resource, list resources, add a field, and delete a resource. There is no counterpart to remove or update fields, leaving add_field as a one-way operation and requiring workarounds like delete-and-rescaffold.
Average 3/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full transparency burden, yet it only reveals the existence of two behavioral modes ('Preview or apply'). It fails to disclose the two-phase handshake workflow (preview returns a previewHash that apply requires), the implications of conflictStrategy values including the potentially destructive 'overwrite', or any safety caveats about modifying manifest-managed resources. The single sentence is the barest outline of behavior.
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 sentence is economically constructed, front-loading the action verb and fitting meaningful scoping in a single readable clause. However, 'appropriately sized' is questionable — for a tool with this much complexity, one sentence is arguably under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. On pure prose quality it's well-built, but it earns no credit for elegance at the expense of substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This tool has a nested field object with ten properties, a two-phase preview/apply workflow, a conflict resolution strategy with potentially destructive values, a required previewHash handoff, and zero annotations or output schema describing any of it. The description needed to do significant heavy lifting and performs none of it. An agent cannot learn the workflow or safely invoke apply mode from this text alone.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description was obligated to compensate but names no parameters directly. 'Existing manifest-managed resource' loosely implies resourceName, but nothing explains the field structure, the preview/apply handoff via previewHash, or the conflictStrategy semantics. All five parameters, including the nested field object with its ten sub-properties, go entirely unexplained.
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 has a specific verb-object construction ('Preview or apply a new field') and a clear resource target ('an existing manifest-managed resource'). The 'manifest-managed' qualifier usefully distinguishes this from scaffolding new resources. However, differentiation from siblings like preview_scaffold or scaffold_resource is left implicit, not stated.
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 offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as scaffold_resource or preview_scaffold. The 'preview or apply' phrasing hints at a workflow — run preview first, then apply — but never states that the preview output is needed as subsequent input (previewHash) or when each mode is appropriate. An agent must infer the intended usage pattern from the schema.
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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the dual-mode nature (preview vs. apply), which is useful, but it omits critical information about a destructive operation, such as irreversibility, cascading effects, idempotency, or whether it requires confirmation. The agent is left unaware of the consequences of 'apply' beyond a generic deletion.
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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action ('Preview or apply deletion') and adds the contextual qualifier. While it could be more detailed, the structure is clean and easily scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with four parameters and zero annotations, the description is grossly insufficient. It fails to explain the meaning of 'preview' vs. 'apply' in practical terms, what 'conflictStrategy' does, or what happens to dependent resources. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool correctly with the information provided.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it doesn't. It never defines 'resourceName', 'mode', 'previewHash', or 'conflictStrategy'. The enums and defaults in the schema are uninterpreted, and the description adds no semantic value about how these parameters affect behavior. This is a critical gap.
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 a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('manifest-managed generated resource'), distinguishing it from siblings like scaffold_resource or list_resources. It also introduces the preview/apply dual-mode behavior, which is a distinct attribute. Could be more explicit about the scope, but it's markedly better than a tautology.
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: use 'preview' to simulate deletion and 'apply' to execute it, which gives context but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it. It doesn't mention any preconditions, confirmations, or relationship to preview_scaffold, leaving implied usage rather than explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description says 'Preview' which suggests a read-only operation, but the input schema includes a 'mode' parameter with 'preview' and 'apply' values, indicating this tool can also apply changes. The description is misleading as it claims only preview but the tool supports apply. This is a behavioral gap and borderline contradiction with the schema (not annotations).
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 a single, concise sentence that is easy to parse. It front-loads the verb and resource. It doesn't waste words. However, it omits crucial details about the mode parameter, which would have been valuable, but conciseness itself is good.
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 tool has 7 parameters, nested objects, an apply mode that causes mutations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. An agent needs to know when to use apply vs preview, what the preview output looks like, and how conflictStrategy works. The description only covers a fraction of the complexity.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. However, the description does not explain any parameter semantics. It doesn't clarify what 'previewHash' is, what 'conflictStrategy' does, or what 'overrides' affect. The baseline for 0% coverage is low, and the description adds nothing. Score 3 is generous; it could be 2, but the tool purpose is simple enough that resourceName is self-explanatory.
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 states a specific verb ('Preview') and resource ('generated files and integration edits for a MERN resource scaffold'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like scaffold_resource (which likely creates), but doesn't explicitly contrast with it. The term 'preview' implies no side effects, which is clear enough.
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 name 'preview_scaffold' and description imply this is for reviewing changes before applying them, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus scaffold_resource or when not to use it. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions. The description implies usage but leaves the decision to the agent inference.
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. The description only says 'Generate a full MERN CRUD slice' and 'preview or apply the write plan'. It does not disclose behavioral details like that applying will create/modify files, potential destructive actions, side effects, or the nature of the write plan. For a tool that can 'apply' changes, this lack of behavioral transparency is a notable gap.
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 one sentence and conveys the key options (preview/apply) without extra fluff. It is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it does take a slight liberty with 'write plan' which is not defined elsewhere.
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 high complexity (7 params, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It doesn't mention the previewHash, conflictStrategy, or how to get a preview. It also doesn't clarify the relationship with sibling 'preview_scaffold'. A function this complex needs much more guidance on workflow, preconditions, and output expectations.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. However, the description does not explain any of the parameters beyond hinting at 'resource' and 'write plan'. With 7 parameters including nested 'fields' and 'overrides', the agent receives very little guidance on what these mean or how to structure them. The enums for mode and conflictStrategy are partially self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value.
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 states the verb 'Generate' and resource 'full MERN CRUD slice' for a resource, and distinguishes between preview and apply modes. It is clear about the tool's core purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'preview_scaffold', which appears to overlap with the preview mode mentioned.
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 by mentioning 'preview or apply the write plan', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'preview_scaffold'. It lacks guidance on when to choose preview vs apply or how this relates to 'add_field' or 'update_drive' (though siblings include 'list_resources', 'delete_resource', 'add_field'). The context is somewhat clear but no explicit exclusions or alternative routing is 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey the read-only listing intent and the optional unmanaged-scan behavior, which is genuinely useful context beyond the name. However, it does not disclose what the scan entails, what the return payload looks like, or what 'unmanaged' means concretely — meaningful gaps given there is zero 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The primary purpose leads, and the optional behavior is appended as a second clause. Nothing is wasted and every word 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?
Complexity is low — one optional boolean parameter, no output schema, no nested structures. For a simple list tool the description is largely sufficient: it states the main function and the one behavioral toggle. Minor omissions (return format, definition of 'unmanaged') are tolerable against the low complexity, though they keep it from being fully complete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'optionally scan for unmanaged ones' maps semantically to the includeUnmanaged boolean (which defaults to true), giving the parameter purpose. But the description never names the parameter or explains the true-default implication, leaving the agent to infer the connection. It adds value but does not fully bridge the 0% coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('manifest-managed resources'), plus an optional secondary behavior ('scan for unmanaged ones'). It is clearly distinguishable from its siblings (scaffold_resource, delete_resource, add_field, preview_scaffold), all of which are mutation tools, so an agent can separate read from write intent immediately.
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 read-versus-mutate distinction against the sibling tools is implied by the verb and resource, but the description never explicitly says 'use this when you need to enumerate resources, not when you need to modify them.' No alternatives are named, and no conditions selecting this tool over another are given. Adequate but left to inference.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mern-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/IrtezaAsadRizvi/mern-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/IrtezaAsadRizvi/mern-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/IrtezaAsadRizvi/mern-mcp'

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