Skip to main content
Glama
MrDgbot

Lanhu MCP Server

by MrDgbot
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v2.0.0

  • Disambiguation3/5

    lanhu_design and lanhu_page both have 'list' and 'analyze' modes, which could cause confusion. Their names distinguish designs from pages, but the modes overlap. lanhu_resolve_invite_link is clearly distinct.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Two tools follow a noun-based pattern (lanhu_design, lanhu_page) while the third uses a verb phrase (lanhu_resolve_invite_link). The naming is mostly consistent but the third tool breaks the pattern.

    Tool Count4/5

    3 tools is reasonable for a design collaboration server, covering design assets, pages, and link resolution. It could potentially be expanded, but it's not too few.

    Completeness3/5

    The server covers design listing/analysis, page listing/analysis, and link resolution. Missing are operations like creating or updating designs/pages, or managing slices directly. Core viewing and analysis are covered.

  • Average 3.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • 8 of 8 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • 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 must disclose behavior. It mentions modes but does not describe what happens during analysis, what information is returned, or any side effects. The tool's behavior beyond mode selection is opaque.

    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 relatively short and well-structured, with a clear breakdown of modes. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, the sentence 'Supports listing and analyzing pages' could be integrated into the mode list more smoothly.

    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 4 parameters with enums and no output schema, the description should explain the return format and behavior for each mode. It does not describe what 'analyze' does, what information is returned, or how 'explorer' differs. This is incomplete.

    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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the modes and hinting that 'analyze' is default, and that 'all' is a valid page_names value. This provides context beyond the schema.

    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 it is a unified tool for Lanhu PRD/prototype, and lists two modes: list and analyze. It distinguishes from siblings (lanhu_design, lanhu_resolve_invite_link) by specifying it handles PRD/prototype pages, while the others likely cover different aspects.

    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 explains the two modes and their basic purpose, but does not explicitly state when to use each mode or when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It provides mode descriptions but no guidance on context or alternatives.

    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 provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It explains the transformation (resolve invite link to URL with parameters) but does not mention any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits.

    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?

    Single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key action. No unnecessary words.

    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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks detail on the resolved URL format or potential errors (e.g., invalid link).

    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 includes an example. The description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score 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 resolves a Lanhu invite/share link to an actual project URL with parameters, distinguishing it from sibling tools that likely handle design or page operations.

    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?

    No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the purpose implies it's for converting invite links, which is a distinct use case from lanhu_design and lanhu_page.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior4/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the unified nature, modes, and special URL handling. However, it does not mention any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits, which would be helpful.

    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 well-structured with a clear overview, bulleted modes, and a concise note on detailDetach URLs. Every sentence is informative and 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?

    Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential functionality well. It could mention what each mode returns, but the modes are self-explanatory. The lack of output schema is compensated by the detailed mode descriptions.

    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%, so the description adds value beyond schema by explaining the relationship between modes and parameters, especially design_names requirement for analyze/slices/tokens and include default. It also explains special URL formats.

    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 'Unified Lanhu design tool' and lists four distinct modes (list, analyze, slices, tokens), each with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings lanhu_page and lanhu_resolve_invite_link by focusing on design-level operations.

    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 explains when to use each mode and mentions special handling for detailDetach URLs with design_names='all'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives for overlapping functionality.

    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

lanhu-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

lanhu-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/MrDgbot/lanhu-mcp'

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