Skip to main content
Glama
LiviuBirjega

files-mcp-ts

by LiviuBirjega
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
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 clear, distinct purpose: listing directory contents, reading a file, and writing to a file. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores: list_files, read_file, write_file. The pattern is uniform and predictable.

    Tool Count4/5

    With 3 tools, the set is minimal but still covers basic file operations. It is slightly thin but not unreasonable for a focused file server.

    Completeness3/5

    The toolset provides list, read, and write operations, but misses common file operations like delete, create directory, or rename. This leaves notable gaps for typical file management tasks.

  • Average 3/5 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?

    No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'list files' without specifying recursion, hidden files, error handling, or output format, leaving significant gaps.

    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 sentence with no wasted words. However, it is overly concise and lacks structure to address key details.

    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 no output schema and low complexity, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention what is returned (file names? full paths?), or any behavioral details like sorting, recursion, or error cases.

    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 100%, and the schema already describes the 'directory' parameter. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

    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 lists files in a directory, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (read_file, write_file) which deal with file contents, not listing.

    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?

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

    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?

    The description does not disclose important behavioral details such as whether the file is overwritten or appended, whether it creates parent directories, or encoding expectations, and no annotations are provided.

    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 extremely concise (5 words), which is efficient but lacks necessary details that could be included without being verbose.

    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?

    Given the simple schema and lack of annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to address file creation overwrite behavior, error conditions, or 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

    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 'Write content to a file' uses a clear verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'list_files' and 'read_file' which have different 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 alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or context.

    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 does not address file size limits, encoding assumptions, how binary files are handled, error states (e.g., missing file), or whether the output includes line numbers. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context.

    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 wasted words. However, conciseness comes at the cost of omitting useful details like return format or usage notes. It is well-structured but slightly too brief.

    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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema) and the existence of sibling tools, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the action and resource but fails to mention that the tool only works on text files (implying binary might fail) or that it returns the entire file contents. Some context is missing.

    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 100% because the single required parameter 'path' has a description ('Path to the file to read') that fully captures its meaning. The tool description adds no additional context, so the baseline score of 3 (adequate) is appropriate.

    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 'Read the contents of a text file', specifying the verb (read) and resource (text file). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'list_files' (which lists files) and 'write_file' (which writes files), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

    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 relative to its siblings (e.g., list_files for browsing, write_file for creating). There is no mention of prerequisites or typical scenarios, leaving the agent without contextual constraints.

    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

files-mcp-ts MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

files-mcp-ts MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

shields.io Endpoint

files-mcp-ts MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama

For READMEs with an existing badge row. Append &style=flat-square (or any other shields.io style) to match the rest, and &metric=tools, &metric=maintenance or &metric=claim to badge a different dimension.

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/LiviuBirjega/files-mcp-ts'

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