videre-mcp

by Veedubin

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are mostly distinct, but ocr_image and ocr_paddle overlap in OCR functionality. However, descriptions clearly differentiate their strengths (Florence-2 vs PaddleOCR), so ambiguity is minimal.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (describe_image, ocr_image, parse_document, take_screenshot). This makes the tool surface predictable for an agent.
Tool Count5/5
6 tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose of image/document analysis and screenshot capture. Each tool serves a clear function without bloat.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers the core tasks: image description, screenshot capture and description, OCR (with specialized options), and document parsing. There are no obvious gaps for the intended domain.
Average 4.1/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 3.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 17 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- 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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses return structure (Dict with text and optional regions) and model behavior for different modes, but does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, requires no authentication, or any other behavioral constraints.
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 highly concise, using a clear Args/Returns structure that is easy to parse. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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?
The description covers input parameters and return values adequately. It acknowledges the optional bounding regions for high detail. However, it does not address error handling or the choice between this and sibling OCR tools, which would be helpful for a complete picture.
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?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context for each parameter: image_path explains supported formats, detail_level explains the difference between normal and high, and model_mode specifies the underlying models and their strengths. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 'Extract text from an image using Florence-2 OCR', providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'ocr_paddle', which also performs OCR, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context on scenarios where this tool should be preferred over sibling tools like 'ocr_paddle' or 'parse_document', and does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
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?
Describes output structure and extraction capabilities, but lacks details on file size limits, error handling, or performance implications. With no annotations, more behavioral context would be beneficial.
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?
Well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns), but includes somewhat verbose marketing line about Docling. Could be slightly more concise.
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 output schema exists, description sufficiently covers inputs and outputs for a multi-format parsing tool. Missing minor details like return structure specifics.
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?
Adds meaning beyond schema by describing file_path format, output_format options, and boolean flags with defaults. Covers all 4 parameters despite 0% schema description 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?
Clearly states the action ('Parse a document') and supported formats (PDF, DOCX, etc.), differentiating it from image-specific sibling tools.
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?
Implied usage for documents vs image tools, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ocr_image.
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 full burden. It discloses the use of models (Florence-2, MiniCPM-V) and return type (dict with regions and model name), but lacks details on whether the tool is purely read-only, requires file system access, or has any side effects. It does not contradict any annotations since none exist.
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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, but it is slightly verbose (e.g., 'Absolute or relative path...' could be shortened). Still, every sentence adds value and the main purpose is front-loaded.
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 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema exists (reducing the need to describe return values in depth), the description is fairly complete. It explains parameters, return structure, and model variants. However, it could mention error conditions or performance implications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively: explains image_path as absolute/relative path with supported formats, detail_level with meanings of 'normal' and 'high', and model_mode with model names and use cases. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Describe UI regions in a screenshot using Florence-2.' It specifies a specific verb (describe) and resource (UI regions in a screenshot), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like describe_image or ocr_image by targeting UI regions specifically.
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 mentions two model modes and detail levels, providing some guidance on how to use parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., describe_image). Usage context is implied through the purpose, but no explicit 'when to use' or alternatives are given.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the underlying models (Florence-2, MiniCPM-V) and the return structure (dict with description, model name, prompt). It does not mention limitations, rate limits, or destructive behavior (not applicable).
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 structured with an introductory sentence followed by Args and Returns sections. It is moderately concise; each sentence adds value. Minor redundancy: 'Returns Dict with ...' could be integrated, but overall well-organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (as indicated by context signals), the description explains the return format. It covers all parameters and the tool's purpose. No gaps for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains all three parameters: image_path supports various formats, detail_level differentiates normal vs high, model_mode explains the two model choices with use cases (default vs document understanding). This adds significant meaning beyond the 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 starts with 'Describe an image in natural language using Florence-2' which clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., describe_screenshot, ocr_image) by focusing on image description vs. OCR or document parsing.
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 explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives. However, it does differentiate model modes ('fast' vs 'deep' for document understanding), giving some guidance on parameter choices. No exclusion or alternative tool references.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and covers key behaviors: saving to path, monitor selection, optional description, and model modes. It lacks details on permissions or destructiveness but still provides good transparency.
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 well-structured with a clear first sentence summarizing the tool, followed by bullet-like Args that are easy to parse. It is appropriately detailed without being verbose.
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?
The description covers parameters and return values (path, width, height, monitor, optionally regions). Given the absence of annotations and the presence of sibling tools, it could have provided more context on when to choose this tool over alternatives, but it still meets most needs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explains all four parameters (output_path, monitor, describe, model_mode) with defaults and behavior, fully compensating for the lack of schema documentation.
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 captures a screenshot and optionally describes it using Florence-2. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like describe_screenshot and describe_image by specifying the optional description behavior.
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 implies when to use the tool (capturing and optionally describing) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. However, it does explain the model_mode options for different use cases.
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 the full burden. It discloses behavioral aspects such as the impact of the 'use_angle_cls' parameter, accuracy/speed claims, and the return structure (dict with text and optional regions). It does not cover potential side effects or failure modes, but for a read-only extraction tool this is sufficient.
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 concise, using a short introductory paragraph followed by a bulleted 'Best for' list and a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value; no filler or repetition. The formatting aids readability and quick scanning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and the complexity of the tool (4 parameters, 1 required), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, use cases, parameter details, and return value summary. It is complete and leaves no obvious gaps for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning: for 'image_path' it specifies absolute/relative path and supported formats; for 'language' it lists example codes; for 'detail_level' it defines 'normal' vs 'high'; and for 'use_angle_cls' it explains the behavior when True. This goes well beyond the schema's bare type/default information.
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 starts with a clear action verb and resource: 'Extract text from an image using PaddleOCR'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'describe_image' and 'ocr_image' by detailing specific use cases (multi-language, CPU-only, high-volume) and mentioning superior accuracy over general vision models.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Best for: Multi-language documents, CPU-only servers, High-volume batch OCR'. It implies when not to use by contrasting with general vision models, but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions for other sibling tools.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![Videre-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Veedubin/Videre-MCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Veedubin/Videre-MCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Videre-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Veedubin/Videre-MCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Veedubin/Videre-MCP)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/Veedubin/Videre-MCP'

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