Skip to main content
Glama
Medard-prog

ios-emoji-mcp

by Medard-prog
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a distinct purpose: listing all emojis, searching by name, and getting a URL. No overlaps.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (get_emojis, search_emojis, get_url).

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools is appropriate for a focused emoji server; each tool contributes without being overwhelming or insufficient.

    Completeness4/5

    Covers listing, searching, and URL retrieval. Missing a direct get_emoji by exact name, but search with fuzzy matching likely compensates.

  • Average 3.5/5 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

  • 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, error handling for missing emojis, or any side effects. The brief description is insufficient for an agent to 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.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. However, it could be slightly expanded to include usage notes without losing conciseness.

    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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description should cover return format, error behavior, or prerequisites. It does not, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

    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% (both parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description adds 'with optional size' but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 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 the verb 'Get' and resource 'URL for a specific emoji', distinguishing it from sibling tools 'get_emojis' (list all emojis) and 'search_emojis' (search for emojis). It specifies the optional size parameter.

    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. Sibling tools are listed in context but not mentioned in the description, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

    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?

    With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'fuzzy matching' which is useful, but does not explain return format, pagination, or what happens with no results. Adequate but not comprehensive.

    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?

    A single sentence that front-loads the purpose. However, it could be slightly expanded to include usage notes without losing conciseness. Currently efficient but missing some valuable context.

    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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details like result limits or matching behavior. It meets minimum viability but has 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?

    Schema coverage is 100% (both parameters described), baseline 3. The description adds 'fuzzy matching' which enhances the query parameter's meaning, and limit is clear from schema. This extra context justifies a 4.

    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 searches for emojis by name using fuzzy matching, which is a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings: get_emojis likely lists all emojis, and get_url retrieves a URL.

    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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (get_emojis, get_url). The agent is left to infer context; ideally, the description would explicitly state when search is preferred over listing all emojis.

    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. It discloses that the tool retrieves a list of emoji names, but does not mention any behavioral traits like return format, pagination, or performance characteristics. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but minimal.

    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 front-loading the purpose. There is no extraneous information; every word is necessary.

    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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but lacks detail about the output format (e.g., whether it returns just names or includes identifiers). A more complete description would specify the structure of the returned list.

    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 no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the result is a list of available iOS emoji names, which adds value beyond the empty 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 explicitly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('list of all available iOS emoji names'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings like search_emojis which suggests search functionality. It is a specific verb+resource with no ambiguity.

    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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_emojis or get_url. The context implies that get_emojis returns all emoji names while search_emojis might filter, but this is not stated directly.

    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

ios-emoji-mcp MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

ios-emoji-mcp MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md: