Skip to main content
Glama
bhaltair

frontend-dev-mcp

by bhaltair
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool addresses a distinct frontend development concern: i18n checking, API type generation, and project structure analysis. There is no overlap in functionality.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (check_i18n_issues, generate_api_types, get_project_structure) using snake_case, making them predictable.

    Tool Count4/5

    Three tools is minimal but appropriate for a focused frontend developer assistant covering common tasks. The scope feels slightly thin but not insufficient.

    Completeness3/5

    The tools cover i18n, API types, and project structure, but miss other common frontend tasks like linting, dependency checks, or component scaffolding. Some gaps exist but core utilities are present.

  • Average 3.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as scanning and checking, implying a read-only analysis. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects (likely none), performance impact for large codebases, or error behavior. The description is adequate but not rich.

    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 listing the main actions, which is concise. It front-loades the purpose. It could be slightly more structured by separating the checks, but it's efficient.

    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 parameter count (8) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, how results are structured, or how to interpret failures. For a complex analysis tool, more context is needed for effective agent use.

    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?

    With 0% schema description coverage and 8 parameters, the description should compensate but does not. It mentions the three check types (missing keys, unused keys, hardcoded text), which map to three boolean parameters, but provides no details on rootDir, localeDir, defaultLocale, include, or exclude. The baseline is 3 due to low coverage, but the description adds only marginal value beyond the schema.

    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 the tool scans locale and source files for three specific issues: missing keys, unused keys, and hardcoded text. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like generate_api_types and get_project_structure.

    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 any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. The agent is left to infer usage from the parameter names alone.

    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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. The description only mentions analysis of structure but does not specify if the tool is read-only, modifies state, or any side effects. It lacks details on output format or how deep the analysis goes, making behavior opaque.

    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 is reasonably concise and front-loaded with the verb 'Analyze'. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the purpose from the scope, but overall it is efficient.

    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 complexity of 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the general purpose. It lacks details on return values, error behavior, or prerequisites (e.g., Node.js project). The description is adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for reliable invocation.

    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 only 20%, meaning only rootDir has a description in the schema. The tool's description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the parameter names (e.g., includeRoutes, maxDepth). The description does not explain the semantics of boolean flags or depth constraints, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

    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 states the tool analyzes the frontend project structure, specifically routes, modules, and config files. It clearly indicates what the tool does but does not differentiate it from sibling tools like check_i18n_issues or generate_api_types, which are semantically distinct, so no confusion arises. However, the lack of differentiation slightly reduces the top score.

    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 the tool is for analyzing project structure but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. No when-not or exclusions are mentioned. The usage context is clear but not deeply prescriptive.

    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 provided, so description partially carries burden. It describes the behavior (generation from OpenAPI) but lacks details on file system changes, overwrite behavior, or network access for URLs.

    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?

    Single sentence, concise and front-loaded. Could include a bit more structure but efficient.

    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?

    With 6 params and no output schema, description could elaborate on return values or side effects. It's adequate but not complete for a code generation 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 coverage is low (17%), but description doesn't add meaning beyond schema for most params. It provides general purpose but no detailed guidance on each parameter, so baseline 3.

    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?

    Description clearly states it generates TypeScript types and client code from OpenAPI spec. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like check_i18n_issues or get_project_structure, which are unrelated, so it's still 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?

    No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Siblings are unrelated, so context is implied but no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

    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

frontend-dev-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

frontend-dev-mcp 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/bhaltair/frontend-dev-mcp'

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