Skip to main content
Glama
andy8663

yuque

by andy8663
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation4/5

    The three tools are distinct: one lists documents, and two read documents in different formats. However, the two read tools have overlapping purposes (both read a document by URL), which could cause minor confusion.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tools share a 'yuque_' prefix and use verb_noun for most, but 'yuque_read' lacks a noun suffix, creating slight inconsistency with 'yuque_list_docs' and 'yuque_read_markdown'.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 3 tools, the server is severely under-scoped for a platform like Yuque, which typically requires many more operations (create, update, delete, etc.).

    Completeness1/5

    The server only provides read and list functionality, missing essential CRUD operations. It is extremely incomplete for the Yuque domain.

  • Average 3.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 3 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 must disclose behavior. It only mentions 'list all documents', failing to note that it's a read-only operation, any authentication needs, or potential pagination. No side effects or limitations are mentioned.

    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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. No redundancy, but might be too brief for complete understanding.

    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?

    The tool has no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining return values (e.g., list of document titles, IDs). It doesn't. Also missing details on pagination, sorting, or filtering, which are common for list operations.

    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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already describes for repo_slug and host.

    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 'list' and the resource 'documents' scoped to a 'Yuque repository', effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools that read individual documents.

    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 versus alternatives like yuque_read or yuque_read_markdown. The description merely states what it does without usage context.

    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 describes the read and conversion operation but does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor does it disclose auth needs, rate limits, or error behavior. Adequate but lacks safety disclaimers.

    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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's functionality. It is concise and front-loaded, though it could be restructured for clarity by splitting into two sentences.

    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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and output (specific Markdown elements). It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and when to use it.

    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 both parameters. The description adds general context about the conversion but does not provide additional details beyond the schema, such as format or constraints for the parameters.

    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 it reads a Yuque document by URL and converts to Markdown with specific elements. It distinguishes from siblings: yuque_list_docs (listing) and yuque_read (likely raw reading), making the tool's specific purpose clear.

    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 converting Yuque documents to Markdown but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like yuque_read or yuque_list_docs, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

    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?

    Description indicates a read operation returning content, but does not explicitly state read-only nature, access requirements, or potential side effects. Given no annotations, description carries full burden; it is adequate but not detailed.

    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?

    Two concise sentences, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value: action, method, and return type. Highly efficient.

    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?

    For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does and returns. Could mention error cases or format, but minimal gaps for this low complexity.

    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?

    Parameter schema has 100% coverage with a clear description. The tool description merely restates the parameter usage ('by URL') without adding new meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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?

    Description clearly states verb ('Read') and resource ('Yuque document') and specifies return type ('full rendered content'). Differentiates from siblings by focusing on rendered content vs markdown (yuque_read_markdown) or listing (yuque_list_docs).

    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?

    Description implies when to use: when you have a document URL and want the full rendered content. Does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but context of sibling tools provides some guidance.

    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

yuque-mcp-tool MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

yuque-mcp-tool 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/andy8663/yuque-mcp-tool'

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