Skip to main content
Glama
demilul

accform-layout-mcp

by demilul
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing available forms, rendering to a stored SVG file, and rendering to SVG text output. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tools follow an underscore_separated verb_noun pattern. 'render_form_svg' is a slight deviation as it adds a suffix, but it is still clear and consistent with the base verb.

    Tool Count5/5

    With only 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of inspecting Access form layouts. Each tool is justified and there is no bloat.

    Completeness4/5

    The server covers the core workflow: list forms and render them in two formats. It lacks tools for modifying or uploading forms, but for an inspection-focused server, this is a minor gap.

  • Average 3.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 1 commit 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?

    No annotations are provided. The description only mentions 'Same layout caveats as render_form' without elaborating on what those caveats entail. There is no discussion of side effects, required permissions, or output specifics beyond the fact that it returns SVG markup.

    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 two sentences plus a brief caveat reference. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and provides a clear use case with no extraneous information.

    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?

    Despite having an output schema, the tool's parameters (especially 'scale_mode') are completely undocumented in the description. The reference to layout caveats is vague. For a tool with two parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficient for confident usage.

    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?

    Input schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions. The description only implicitly references the 'form' parameter but does not explain valid values or the 'scale_mode' parameter at all. The description adds no additional meaning to the schema.

    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 renders an Access form/report layout to SVG markup text. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'render_form' by emphasizing the utility for inspecting exact coordinates and sizes rather than just viewing an image.

    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?

    The description provides a clear use case ('when you want to inspect exact control coordinates, sizes and captions') and references 'Same layout caveats as render_form' to guide usage. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is strong.

    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. Description states it lists files under a configured source root, which implies read-only behavior, but does not explicitly confirm lack of side effects or required permissions.

    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?

    Single sentence, 20 words, front-loads purpose. No extraneous information.

    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 no parameters and existence of an output schema, the description covers the tool's scope and output format adequately. The term 'configured source root' is not elaborated but likely a global context.

    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?

    Schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage. Description adds meaning beyond schema by specifying file type (*.bas designer files) and output format (paths relative to source root).

    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 uses a specific verb 'List' and specifies the resource as 'Access form/report layout files (*.bas designer files)', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools render_form and render_form_svg which handle rendering.

    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 versus alternatives, but siblings are rendering-focused, implying listing is for discovery. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosure. It explains that the render is based on declarative designer layout only, not runtime behavior, and mentions storage under a dated folder. This gives agents a good understanding of the tool's behavior, though it could further clarify if any side effects exist (e.g., file creation).

    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 reasonably concise, consisting of two short paragraphs. The first sentence clearly states the main purpose, and the second paragraph adds necessary caveats. No unnecessary repetition or fluff.

    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 complexity (rendering and storage), the description adequately covers input, behavior, and limitations. The output schema is present (though not shown), so agents can rely on it for return values. Missing details like scale_mode options are a minor 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?

    The description adds meaning for the 'form' parameter by indicating it accepts form names or *.bas file paths, which is not in the schema. However, the 'scale_mode' parameter is not explained beyond its default value, leaving agents without guidance on what values are valid or how they affect output. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.

    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 renders an Access form/report layout to SVG and stores it under a dated artifact folder. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings list_forms (listing) and render_form_svg (likely just returning SVG without storage).

    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?

    The description explains how to use the tool (pass form name or *.bas file path) and what it does not reflect (runtime VBA behavior), providing clear context for when to use it versus alternatives. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use sibling tools.

    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

accform-layout-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

accform-layout-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/demilul/accform-layout-mcp'

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