Skip to main content
Glama
Tongzhao9417

MinerU MCP Server

by Tongzhao9417
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: get_ocr_languages retrieves a list of supported languages for OCR, while parse_documents converts files to Markdown format. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the appropriate tool without confusion.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern (get_ocr_languages and parse_documents), using snake_case throughout. This predictability enhances readability and usability for agents, with no deviations in style.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a document processing domain that might include OCR and parsing. While the tools cover specific tasks, the scope suggests potential gaps (e.g., no tools for editing, saving, or managing documents), making it borderline too few for comprehensive functionality.

    Completeness3/5

    The tools cover basic OCR language retrieval and document parsing, but there are notable gaps in the document processing lifecycle. For example, there are no tools for creating, updating, or deleting documents, which could limit agent workflows and lead to dead ends in more complex tasks.

  • Average 3.6/5 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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (get a list) without any additional context about permissions, rate limits, response format, or other behavioral traits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely returns structured data.

    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 in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured for its simple function.

    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 low complexity (0 parameters, simple read operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and a sibling tool, it could benefit from more context about usage or behavior to be fully complete.

    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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline expectation. No compensation is required for missing parameter info.

    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: '获取 OCR 支持的语言列表' (Get the list of languages supported by OCR). It specifies the verb '获取' (get) and resource 'OCR 支持的语言列表' (OCR-supported language list). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'parse_documents', which appears to be a different operation (parsing vs. 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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'parse_documents' or any other context for usage. The agent must infer usage based on the purpose alone, with no explicit when/when-not instructions.

    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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool's automatic processing behavior based on configuration and mentions supported file formats, but doesn't cover important aspects like error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with large files. The description adds some context but leaves significant behavioral 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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the core function and explaining the processing approach. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, though the second sentence could be slightly more streamlined.

    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 has an output schema (which handles return values), 100% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and how it processes files. However, for a document parsing tool with multiple parameters and no annotations, more behavioral context about limitations or edge cases would be beneficial.

    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 all parameters thoroughly. The description mentions support for local files and URLs but doesn't add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

    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's purpose: '将文件转换为Markdown格式' (convert files to Markdown format). It specifies the unified interface approach and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_ocr_languages by focusing on document parsing rather than language retrieval.

    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 provides clear context about when to use this tool: for converting files to Markdown, supporting both local files and URLs, with automatic processing based on USE_LOCAL_API configuration. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives beyond the sibling tool.

    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

mineru_mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mineru_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/Tongzhao9417/mineru_mcp'

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