Skip to main content
Glama
OnePieceLwc

Logo MCP

by OnePieceLwc
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation2/5

    The two tools have significant functional overlap, as both can return the best logo URL. The analyze_logo tool provides broader analysis but includes the best URL functionality, while get_best_logo_url is specifically for that purpose, creating ambiguity about when to use each tool.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tools follow a clear verb_noun naming pattern (analyze_logo, get_best_logo_url), which is consistent and readable. The minor deviation is that one uses 'analyze' while the other uses 'get', but this reflects their different primary purposes.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels under-scoped for a logo analysis domain. This minimal set lacks operations for common needs like logo validation, format conversion, or batch processing, making it too thin for robust functionality.

    Completeness2/5

    The toolset is severely incomplete for logo analysis. It misses essential operations such as logo validation, format conversion (e.g., to PNG/SVG), resizing, color extraction, or batch processing, leaving significant gaps that will limit agent effectiveness.

  • Average 3.2/5 across 2 of 2 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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 'onlyBestUrl' parameter behavior but doesn't describe what happens when it's false (presumably returns full analysis), what 'best' means, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or output format. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond basic functionality.

    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 appropriately concise with two clear clauses: the main purpose statement and the parameter support explanation. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the second clause could be slightly more integrated with the main purpose rather than appearing as an addendum.

    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 annotations, no output schema, and a tool that performs analysis (potentially complex processing), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the analysis returns, what metrics are evaluated, how 'quality' is determined, or what happens when analysis fails. For an analysis tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves significant gaps.

    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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the 'onlyBestUrl' parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about what 'best' means or how the analysis is performed. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

    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: '分析Logo的基本信息（尺寸、格式、质量等）' (analyze logo's basic information including dimensions, format, quality, etc.). It specifies the verb 'analyze' and resource 'logo', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'get_best_logo_url' beyond mentioning the 'onlyBestUrl' parameter.

    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 context through the 'onlyBestUrl' parameter explanation ('支持onlyBestUrl参数只返回最佳Logo的URL' - supports onlyBestUrl parameter to return only the best logo URL). However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_best_logo_url' or any other alternatives, leaving the relationship ambiguous.

    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 of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions extraction and returning a URL, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: what '最佳' (best) means (criteria for selection), whether this makes network requests, potential rate limits, error handling, or what happens if no logo is found. For a tool that presumably performs web scraping/analysis with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

    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 extremely concise - a single sentence in Chinese that directly states the purpose and usage context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core functionality.

    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 that this is a tool that performs web analysis/extraction with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes '最佳' (best) logo, what format the returned URL will be in, potential limitations or requirements (e.g., the website must be accessible), or error conditions. For a tool with this complexity and no structured metadata, the description should provide more contextual information.

    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% (the single parameter 'url' has a clear description in the schema: '要分析的网站URL' - website URL to analyze). The tool description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without additional param details in the description.

    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: '从网站提取并返回最佳Logo的URL地址' (extract and return the best logo URL from a website). It specifies the verb ('提取并返回' - extract and return) and resource ('Logo的URL地址' - logo URL address). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'analyze_logo' - it only says it's '适用于只需要获取最佳Logo URL的场景' (suitable for scenarios where only the best logo URL is needed), which is somewhat implied differentiation but not explicit.

    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 provides some usage guidance: '适用于只需要获取最佳Logo URL的场景' (suitable for scenarios where only the best logo URL is needed). This implies when to use this tool (when you just need the URL) versus potentially more comprehensive analysis with 'analyze_logo', but it's not explicit about when NOT to use it or clear alternatives. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

    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

logo-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

logo-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/OnePieceLwc/logo-mcp'

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