Skip to main content
Glama
dhinalata21-ctrl

localsend-mcp

by dhinalata21-ctrl
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

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one scans for receivers, the other sends files. There is no possible confusion between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with the 'localsend_' prefix and a clear verb: 'scan' and 'send'.

    Tool Count3/5

    Two tools is minimal but acceptable for a focused server that only handles scanning and sending. However, it feels thin compared to the broader file-sharing domain.

    Completeness2/5

    The server provides only sending capabilities; receiving files is entirely missing. This is a significant gap for a file-sharing tool, as agents cannot complete a full send-receive workflow.

  • Average 3.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 11 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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is destructive, what happens on success/failure, authentication requirements, error states, or side effects (e.g., overwriting files). The description only states the surface-level action, leaving the agent without critical behavioral context. Score 2 reflects this significant gap.

    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?

    Description is a single, clear, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action and target formats. However, it could be structured into a brief usage paragraph without losing clarity. Score 4 for appropriate conciseness.

    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 has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks essential context such as how the transfer works, what return values to expect, or how to interpret the parameters. For a multi-parameter tool, the description should provide an overview of the transfer flow. Score 2 indicates incomplete contextual coverage.

    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%, meaning all parameters have descriptions. The overall description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: it summarizes the target format but does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints. Baseline is 3 for high schema coverage, and the description does not elevate beyond that. Score 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 clearly states the action (send) and the resource (file paths to a LocalSend target). It specifies the target formats (alias, IP, host:port, or URL), which is precise. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'localsend_scan', though the verb 'send' vs 'scan' makes the distinction clear. A score of 4 reflects good clarity without explicit sibling differentiation.

    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. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for when to choose 'localsend_send' over 'localsend_scan'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and verb. This lack of usage guidelines lowers the score to 2.

    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 mentions return values but does not disclose network behavior (e.g., uses UDP broadcast), permissions, or side effects. Adequate but not fully transparent.

    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, front-loaded with action and result. No wasted words.

    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?

    For a simple scan tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description lists return fields. Minor gap: does not specify that returns a list of devices. Still mostly complete.

    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?

    Only one parameter (timeout) with full schema description ('Scan duration in seconds'). Description does not add extra meaning beyond schema. Baseline score of 3 due to 100% 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 tool scans LAN for LocalSend receivers and returns specific details (aliases, IPs, ports, protocols). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'localsend_send' which sends files.

    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?

    Usage is implied (scan before sending), but no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. the sibling tool. No exclusions or prerequisites 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

localsend-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

localsend-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/dhinalata21-ctrl/localsend-mcp'

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