Skip to main content
Glama
beomzh

hwpConverMdMCP

by beomzh
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one handles base64-encoded file content directly, while the other works with local file paths. Their descriptions explicitly differentiate the input methods, eliminating any ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (convert_hwp_content_to_md and convert_hwp_to_md), using the same verb 'convert' and similar noun structures. The naming is predictable and readable throughout.

    Tool Count4/5

    With only 2 tools, the server is minimal but well-scoped for its purpose of converting HWP/HWPX files to Markdown. It covers both content-based and path-based inputs, though it might feel slightly thin for broader file processing tasks.

    Completeness4/5

    The server provides complete coverage for its core conversion functionality, supporting both direct content and file paths. A minor gap exists in not handling other file operations like validation or batch processing, but the essential workflow is fully covered.

  • Average 4.1/5 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

  • 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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    Annotations indicate read-only and open-world hints, which the description aligns with by not contradicting them. However, it adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations, such as specifying the server filesystem requirement, but lacks details on error handling or output format specifics.

    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 and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and key usage requirement without unnecessary details.

    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 simple input schema with full coverage and annotations providing safety hints, the description is adequately complete for a conversion tool. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from mentioning the return type or any limitations.

    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 fully documents the 'filePath' parameter. The description adds no additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as file format constraints or path examples.

    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 specific action ('convert'), resource ('HWP or HWPX file'), and output format ('Markdown'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'convert_hwp_content_to_md' which likely handles content rather than file paths.

    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?

    It provides clear context by specifying that the file must exist on the server filesystem and requires a local file path, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tool or any 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?

    Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and flexibility. The description adds context about filename requirements for format detection, but does not detail conversion limitations, error handling, or output specifics, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

    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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context and parameter guidance, all in three concise sentences with no wasted words, making it 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?

    Given the tool's moderate complexity, lack of output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and key parameter context well. However, it could be more complete by mentioning conversion accuracy or output format details, though annotations help mitigate this gap.

    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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description reiterates the purpose of content and filename but does not add significant semantic details beyond what the schema provides, aligning with the baseline for high 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?

    The description clearly states the specific action ('convert'), resource ('Base64-encoded HWP or HWPX file content'), and output format ('Markdown'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying 'when file content is passed directly instead of file path'.

    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?

    It explicitly states when to use this tool ('when file content is passed directly instead of file path'), which implicitly suggests the alternative (sibling tool convert_hwp_to_md) is for file paths, providing clear context for selection.

    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

hwpConverMdMCP MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

hwpConverMdMCP 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/beomzh/hwpConverMdMCP'

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