zapcap-mcp-server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: create_task for task creation, get_templates for template retrieval, monitor_task for progress tracking, and two upload tools differentiated by source (file vs. URL). No ambiguity exists between these operations.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with the prefix 'zapcap_mcp_' (e.g., create_task, get_templates, monitor_task, upload_video, upload_video_by_url). This uniformity makes the set predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, this server is well-scoped for video processing tasks, covering essential operations like uploading, creating, monitoring, and template retrieval. Each tool earns its place without bloat or thin coverage.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers core workflows (upload, create, monitor, templates) effectively, but lacks explicit update or delete operations for tasks or videos. Agents can likely work around this, but the absence is a minor gap in lifecycle coverage.
Average 2.6/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored. Lowest: 1.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 1 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 13, 2025
- 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.
View related servers

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

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Monitor task progress' gives no indication of whether this is a read-only operation, how it handles errors, what the monitoring interval might be, or what the output looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 extremely concise at just three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential action.
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 apparent complexity (monitoring implies ongoing status checks), lack of annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists (which helps), the description doesn't provide enough context about how monitoring works, what 'progress' means, or how this tool fits into the workflow with siblings like create_task.
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 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain what 'video_id' or 'task_id' represent, their format, or how they relate to monitoring. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Monitor task progress' states a general purpose but lacks specificity. It mentions the verb 'monitor' and resource 'task progress', but doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'zapcap_mcp_create_task' or clarify what type of monitoring it performs. It's better than a tautology but remains vague about what monitoring entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a task_id from create_task), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like 'zapcap_mcp_create_task'. This leaves the agent with no context for appropriate tool selection.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' implies a write operation but lacks details on permissions, side effects, rate limits, or what 'full customization options' entails beyond the schema. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with complex parameters.
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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
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 complexity (many parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the customization options, prerequisites, or behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps despite the output schema handling return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning all parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description only mentions 'full customization options' without explaining any parameters, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation and leaving the agent with no semantic understanding of inputs.
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 verb ('Create') and resource ('video processing task'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'zapcap_mcp_upload_video' or 'zapcap_mcp_monitor_task', which handle different aspects of the workflow.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an uploaded video or template), dependencies on sibling tools, or scenarios where it's appropriate, leaving the agent without context for decision-making.
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 full burden. It states 'Upload video file' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, file size restrictions, or what happens after upload (e.g., processing, storage location). The description is minimal and lacks important operational context for a mutation tool.
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 at just 5 words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. There's zero wasted language or redundancy. For such a simple statement, it's maximally efficient in word count.
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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but with an output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the upload accomplishes, what happens after upload, file requirements, or how this differs from the URL-based sibling. The output schema existence means return values are documented elsewhere, but the description should still provide more operational context.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description doesn't mention any parameters at all. While there's only one parameter ('file_path'), the description provides no information about it - no format expectations, path requirements, or what constitutes a valid video file. The schema alone documents the parameter, but with 0% coverage, the description adds no value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb ('Upload') and resource ('video file to ZapCap'), which gives a basic understanding of what the tool does. However, it's vague about the specific action - it doesn't clarify if this uploads for processing, storage, or another purpose. It doesn't distinguish from its sibling 'zapcap_mcp_upload_video_by_url', which handles URL-based uploads versus this file-based approach.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention the sibling tool 'zapcap_mcp_upload_video_by_url' for URL uploads or other tools like 'zapcap_mcp_create_task' that might be related. No context is provided about prerequisites, file format requirements, or when this upload method is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to do so. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what the expected outcome is (e.g., success/failure response, video processing). For a mutation tool ('Upload'), this lack of transparency is a critical gap.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words, front-loading the core action ('Upload video by URL'). It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
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 (a mutation operation with no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like side effects, authentication needs, or error handling, which are crucial for safe invocation. While the output schema may cover return values, the description fails to provide enough context for the agent to understand the tool's full implications.
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 description implies a 'url' parameter but doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage, the schema only documents the parameter name and type, and the description doesn't compensate by explaining URL formats, supported protocols, or validation rules. However, since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of added value reduces it to 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?
The description 'Upload video by URL to ZapCap' clearly states the verb ('Upload'), resource ('video'), and mechanism ('by URL'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from the sibling 'zapcap_mcp_upload_video' by specifying the URL-based approach, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. However, it lacks specificity about what ZapCap is or what happens after upload, keeping it from a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'zapcap_mcp_upload_video' or other siblings. It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for URL-based uploads, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone. This minimal guidance is insufficient for informed tool selection.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('Get available templates') without explaining what 'templates' are, how they're returned, whether this is a read-only operation, or any rate limits or authentication requirements. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters. However, it could be slightly more structured by front-loading key information about what 'templates' represent.
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 has no parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations are absent, the description is minimally complete. It identifies the resource ('templates') but doesn't explain what templates are or their format. The output schema will handle return values, but the description could better contextualize what 'available templates' means in this system.
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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't waste space on non-existent parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Get available templates from ZapCap', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings (create_task, monitor_task, upload_video, upload_video_by_url), which all involve different operations. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling context.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or relationships to sibling tools. Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.
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:

[![zapcap-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bogdanminko/zapcap-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bogdanminko/zapcap-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![zapcap-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bogdanminko/zapcap-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bogdanminko/zapcap-mcp-server)

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/bogdanminko/zapcap-mcp-server'

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