Skip to main content
Glama
bdiaby1

Lexware Office MCP Server

by bdiaby1
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v2.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: search is for discovering API endpoints and workflows, while execute is for making actual API requests. The descriptions explicitly state to use search before execute, eliminating ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names are single lowercase verbs ('search' and 'execute'), following a consistent imperative style. There is no mixing of conventions or confusing patterns.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server is at the low end of what might be considered adequate. However, the design intentionally uses a minimal pair of discovery and execution, which is reasonable for the broad API access it provides.

    Completeness5/5

    The search tool exposes the full API catalog, including workflows and domain guides, while execute can perform any documented API operation. Together they cover the complete lifecycle of discovering and interacting with the Lexware Office API, leaving no functional gaps.

  • Average 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
    • 15 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

  • Behavior5/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses sandbox limitations (no API key, filesystem, process, imports, fetch, arbitrary network access), read-only defaults, write blocking behavior, and response semantics (all HTTP responses returned, json/paginate throwing on non-OK). It even details binary upload behavior and integrity echo (sent.sha256). This is exemplary transparency beyond structured fields.

    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?

    Despite its length, the description is intentionally structured: purpose, usage guidance, sandbox constraints, global declarations, type definitions, and examples. It is front-loaded with the primary directive and every section supports safe, correct usage. No filler or redundancy; the complexity of the tool warrants the detail.

    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?

    This is a complex execution tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description compensates fully by defining LexwareResponse fields, error categories, retry hints, operation metadata, and request echo. It also explains multipart upload mechanics and integrity verification. The description is essentially self-contained for an 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?

    Schema coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description massively enriches the 'code' parameter with a full type system (LexwareRequest, LexwareResponse, MultipartPart), global APIs, constraints, and two worked examples. This far exceeds schema descriptions. While maxRequests is only in the schema, the tool-level semantic enrichment is exceptional.

    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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Execute a constrained Lexware Office API workflow by running a JavaScript async arrow function.' It clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'search' by explicitly referencing search for endpoint/domain guidance. No ambiguity or tautology.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines5/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    Explicit guidance is given: 'Use search first when you need endpoint/domain guidance; do not guess Lexware paths from memory.' It also provides detailed conditions for write operations (read-only by default, LEXWARE_OFFICE_ALLOW_WRITES, LEXWARE_OFFICE_READ_ONLY override) and how to check spec.info.writesEnabled before attempting a write. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior5/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses the sandbox limitations ('no network, filesystem, process, fetch, imports, or API key'), return expectations ('Return JSON-serializable data; console logs are captured'), and the available global 'spec' object, providing strong behavioral context.

    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 long but well-structured with bullet points and code blocks. Each section serves a purpose: purpose, usage, global, starting points, sandbox, and examples. It is front-loaded and scannable despite its length.

    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 tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the execution environment, data structures, use cases, constraints, and examples, which fully prepares an agent to select and invoke 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?

    Although the schema already describes the 'code' parameter, the description goes far beyond by documenting the structure of the 'spec' global, listing key properties like domainIndex and workflows, and providing two complete code examples. This enriches the parameter meaning substantially.

    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 function: 'Search the curated Lexware Office API catalog by running a JavaScript async arrow function.' It names the specific resource (catalog) and differentiates from the sibling 'execute' by explicitly prescribing use before it.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines5/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this before execute to discover endpoints, request shapes, response notes, workflows, and domain-specific caveats.' It also offers practical starting points and reminds the agent to check 'writesEnabled' before planning writes, effectively telling when and how to use the 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

claude_lexware_mcp_3 MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

claude_lexware_mcp_3 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/bdiaby1/claude_lexware_mcp_3'

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