ScreenShotTool MCP

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
All tools have clearly distinct purposes: capturing, listing, launching/closing apps, and various input actions (click, menu click, move mouse, send key, type text). Even the two input tools (send_key vs type_text) are differentiated by keystrokes vs text input.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores (e.g., capture_screen_region, click_window, send_key). No mixing of camelCase or other conventions.
Tool Count5/5
10 tools cover the main actions for screen capture and window interaction (capture, list, launch, close, click, menu click, keyboard input, mouse move). Not too few or too many for the scope.
Completeness4/5
Covers core capture and interaction needs, but lacks explicit full-screen capture, monitor enumeration, mouse scrolling, or window sizing. These are minor omissions for a screenshot-focused toolset.
Average 3.7/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 76 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
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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 exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic functionality and fails to mention error handling (e.g., invalid region), output format, or any side effects.
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 a single clear sentence with no wasted words. It could be slightly expanded for context, but it remains concise and front-loaded.
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's complexity (2 parameters, nested object) and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It omits details on output path behavior, coordinate system, and potential errors, making it insufficient for an agent.
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% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('capture') and the resource ('a screen-space rectangle'), and the sibling tool 'capture_window' implies a distinct purpose, so it effectively distinguishes from alternatives.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'capture_window'. The description provides no context on appropriate scenarios or exclusions.
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. It explains the noActivate behavior but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether it simulates actual keystrokes, how modifiers combine, or any side effects like focus changes. Minimal disclosure.
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?
Two sentences are concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core function, and the second explains a key parameter. However, it lacks detail on other parameters.
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 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to target a window using hwnd, pid, processName, or titleContains, nor does it clarify delayMs and pressMs behavior. Lacks sufficient context for a complex tool.
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 44%, so the description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema's descriptions. The schema already describes hwnd, key, modifiers, and noActivate adequately. The tool description only repeats noActivate behavior.
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 sends a keystroke with optional modifiers and distinguishes itself from siblings like type_text by mentioning the noActivate behavior. It uses a specific verb and resource.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like type_text or click_window. The description does not mention prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions.
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?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'visible top-level' and optional filters but does not explain side effects, performance, error cases, or read-only nature. The description is too vague.
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?
One sentence of 16 words, front-loaded with the main action. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.
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?
Adequate but missing return format details (e.g., what data is returned for each window). With no output schema, the description should explain the output. Also no mention of behavior with no filters (lists all windows).
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 description adds meaning by stating filters are optional and what they filter by. While the schema covers 67% of parameters with descriptions, the tool description confirms the filtering pattern and adds context for pid which lacks schema description.
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 lists visible top-level Windows desktop windows with optional filters, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like capture_window and click_window which perform different actions on windows.
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 about prerequisites or when not to use it, which is needed given the many sibling tools.
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 burden. It only states the basic action and does not disclose error behavior, prerequisites (e.g., window focus), or what happens if the menu path is invalid.
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?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and key distinguishing feature. No wasted words.
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?
For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks guidance on window identification (hwnd vs pid vs processName vs titleContains), error handling, and return behavior.
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 50% (3 of 6 params described). The description adds meaningful context for 'path' by specifying matching behavior (ignore accelerators, case-insensitive), which aids correct invocation.
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 invokes a native Windows menu item by menu path, and distinguishes from moving cursor or using keyboard shortcuts, which differentiates it from sibling tools like click_window and send_key.
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 use for menu navigation without cursor or keyboard, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like click_window, send_key, or type_text for menu access.
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 key behavior (no cursor movement) but omits other behavioral traits like permissions, side effects, trigger behavior, or error handling. It is moderately transparent but incomplete.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and distinguishing feature efficiently. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain how to identify the target window using hwnd/pid/processName/titleContains, which is crucial for correct usage. The description only covers the click mechanism, leaving significant context 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 coverage is 56%, above 50% baseline. The description adds no further parameter details beyond the schema. With moderate schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.
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 posts mouse click messages to window-relative coordinates without moving the physical cursor. It uses a specific verb ('Post') and resource ('mouse click messages'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like move_mouse_window and click_menu_item.
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 when a click without cursor movement is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It lacks explicit 'use this when' or 'instead of' guidance, making it adequate but not strong.
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?
Without annotations, the description reveals that the tool is destructive (terminates process tree) and uses forced termination (/F). However, it does not discuss side effects, permissions required, or data loss risks, leaving gaps in transparency.
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?
A single, efficient sentence that conveys the core action and method without any superfluous content.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully captures the essential behavior and constraints, leaving no critical 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?
The input schema already covers the pid parameter with a detailed description that matches the tool's description. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no additional semantic value beyond reiteration.
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 specifies the action ('terminate'), the resource ('process and its descendants'), and distinguishes from siblings like launch_app or capture by focusing on process termination via taskkill with /T /F flags.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., close_window or other termination methods), nor any warnings about prerequisites or contexts to avoid.
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, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions special behaviors for print method and noActivate, but lacks details on permission requirements, error handling (e.g., if no window matches), or side effects (e.g., window state changes). The description is adequate but not comprehensive.
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: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and highlight two key options. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted 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 9 parameters (complex) and no output schema, the description could be more complete. It doesn't mention the output format (presumably an image file) or error conditions. However, the high schema coverage and concise core description make it minimally viable.
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 67% (high), so the schema already documents many parameters. The description adds context for captureMethod ('captures window content even behind other windows') and noActivate ('avoids stealing focus'), but these are partially redundant with schema descriptions. The added value is modest, warranting a baseline of 3.
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 verb 'Capture' and resource 'a window', and lists specific identification methods (hwnd, pid, process name, title substring). This distinguishes it from siblings like capture_screen_region (which captures a region, not a window) and list_windows (which lists windows without capturing).
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 guidance on when to use 'print' capture method (for occluded/minimized windows) and noActivate (to avoid stealing focus). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives beyond implicit differentiation.
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?
Despite no annotations, the description discloses the underlying mechanism (SendInput vs PostMessage WM_CHAR), notes that some applications may not respond to posted messages, and explains the noActivate behavior. However, it lacks details on safety, visibility requirements, or interruption 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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action. Every part contributes meaning, with no wasted 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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the targeting method and a behavioral variant but omits return values, error handling, and safety considerations. Adequate but not 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 description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that hwnd comes from list_windows or launch_app and that text supports any Unicode characters. With 63% schema coverage, these additions are helpful, though not exhaustive.
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 action (type text), the method (SendInput Unicode), and the resource (window). It also distinguishes the noActivate alternative, providing a specific verb and resource.
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 does not provide guidance on when to use type_text versus sibling tools like send_key, click_window, or launch_app. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is 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, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: the tool does not move the physical cursor (only posts a message). It also indicates the intended effect (hover states). However, it omits potential side effects, blocking behavior, or error handling.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and key details, with no unnecessary words or repetition.
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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is brief and covers the primary purpose and use case. It does not explain how to target the window (via hwnd, pid, etc.) or discuss return values or error conditions. The sibling tools context helps, but the description could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 57% (4 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no new parameter information beyond what is in the schema; it only mentions 'window-relative coordinate' which is already described for x and y. The undocumented parameters (pid, processName, titleContains) are not explained.
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 action: posting a WM_MOUSEMOVE message to a window-relative coordinate without moving the physical cursor. It specifies the use case (hover states before screenshot) and distinguishes from sibling tools (no other tool moves the mouse without clicking).
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 a clear use case ('useful for hover states before taking a screenshot'), which guides when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the sibling tools imply that this is for simulated hover without cursor movement.
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, the description carries the full burden and adequately discloses key behaviors: optional waiting, noActivate prevents focus stealing, and startMinimized for non-intrusive launches. However, it does not mention errors, permissions, or return 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 two sentences with no wasted words. Each sentence provides essential information: what the tool does and a key parameter hint.
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 no output schema, the description does not explain return values or whether the tool is synchronous. It covers the main purpose and two key parameters but lacks explicit mention of required fields (exePath) and process behavior after launch.
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 high (86%), so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining noActivate's effect and suggesting combination with startMinimized for non-intrusive launches, providing usage context not in 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 clearly states the action 'Launch a Windows .exe' and key optional behaviors like waiting for the first visible window and preventing focus stealing with noActivate. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like close_app or list_windows.
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 launching executables and controlling focus, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., close_app). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance provided.
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:

[![ScreenShotTool-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Winter-And-You-Gone/ScreenShotTool-MCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Winter-And-You-Gone/ScreenShotTool-MCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ScreenShotTool-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Winter-And-You-Gone/ScreenShotTool-MCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Winter-And-You-Gone/ScreenShotTool-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/Winter-And-You-Gone/ScreenShotTool-MCP'

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