Skip to main content
Glama
TIMBOTGPT

File Opener MCP Server

by TIMBOTGPT
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: open_file opens files with the default application, while reveal_in_finder shows files in Finder without opening them. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions, making tool selection straightforward.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (open_file, reveal_in_finder) with clear, descriptive names. The naming style is uniform and predictable across the tool set.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for a 'File Opener' domain. While the tools cover basic macOS file operations, the scope suggests potential gaps (e.g., no tools for editing, copying, or managing files), making the set appear underdeveloped.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for file operations. It lacks core functionalities like creating, deleting, moving, or editing files, and is limited to macOS-specific actions. This will cause agent failures for common file management tasks beyond opening or revealing.

  • Average 3.5/5 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Reveal') but doesn't explain what this entails operationally—such as whether it opens Finder windows, selects files, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding 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.

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

    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?

    For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines, which are crucial given the sibling tool 'open_file' and the absence of annotations. The description covers the basic purpose but misses contextual depth needed for optimal agent decision-making.

    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?

    The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'path' parameter fully documented. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as path format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a 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 verb ('Reveal') and resource ('a file or directory in Finder'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'open_file', which might have overlapping functionality for opening files versus revealing them in the file system browser.

    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 the sibling 'open_file' or other alternatives. It lacks context about specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

    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 provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the implementation detail ('macOS open command') which is valuable behavioral context, but doesn't mention potential side effects like launching applications, system permissions needed, or error conditions. It adequately describes the core behavior but lacks comprehensive operational details.

    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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes implementation detail without unnecessary elaboration. Every word serves a purpose, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

    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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient context for basic usage. It explains what the tool does and how it's implemented, though it could benefit from mentioning typical use cases or limitations. The absence of output schema means return values aren't documented, but this is acceptable for this type of system operation.

    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 fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as path format examples or application compatibility details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

    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 specific action ('Open') and resource ('a file or directory') using the system default application, with explicit mention of the macOS 'open' command implementation. It distinguishes from the sibling 'reveal_in_finder' by focusing on opening rather than revealing.

    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 for opening files/directories with default applications, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reveal_in_finder' or when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks comparative or exclusionary statements.

    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

file-opener-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

file-opener-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/TIMBOTGPT/file-opener-mcp'

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