Skip to main content
Glama
dmitryglhf

url-download-mcp

by dmitryglhf
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

83%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation3/5

    The two tools have overlapping purposes—both download files from URLs—but their descriptions help differentiate them: one handles multiple files, the other a single file with optional custom naming. However, the core functionality is similar, which could lead to confusion about when to use each.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case throughout: 'download_files' and 'download_single_file'. Both start with 'download' and clearly describe their scope, making the naming predictable and easy to understand.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a URL download domain, as it lacks operations like checking download status, handling errors, or managing downloads. While the tools cover basic downloading, the count is borderline for providing a complete surface.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is significantly incomplete for a URL download server. It lacks essential operations such as validating URLs, pausing/resuming downloads, handling authentication, or providing progress updates. This will likely cause agent failures in more complex scenarios.

  • Average 3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed 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

  • 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.

  • This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.

  • 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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions optional filename customization. It fails to disclose critical behavioral traits like network dependencies, file system interactions, timeout behavior, size limits, error handling, or output location details.

    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. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

    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, this is a network/filesystem operation with 5 parameters and no annotations. The description is inadequate for such complexity - it doesn't address security considerations, failure modes, or what happens with the downloaded file.

    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 well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional custom filename' which corresponds to the 'filename' parameter, but doesn't provide additional context beyond what the schema already specifies.

    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 ('Download') and resource ('a single file from URL'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'download_files' which suggests batch operations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling beyond the 'single' qualifier.

    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 'download_files' or other alternatives. It mentions 'optional custom filename' but gives no context about prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases.

    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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions saving to the local filesystem, which implies a write operation, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if files already exist. For a tool with no annotations and potential side effects, this is inadequate.

    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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured.

    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 an output schema (which handles return values) and full schema coverage for parameters, the description's minimalism is partially acceptable. However, for a tool that performs downloads and file system writes with no annotations, more context on behavior and usage would improve completeness, leaving it at an adequate but basic level.

    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 all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles all parameter documentation.

    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 ('download multiple files') and resource ('from URLs'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'download_single_file' by specifying 'multiple files'. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the sibling tool name or contrast their purposes directly, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

    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 'download_single_file', nor does it mention any prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. It states what the tool does but not when it's appropriate, resulting in minimal usage guidance.

    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

url-download-mcp MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

url-download-mcp MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

shields.io Endpoint

url-download-mcp MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama

For READMEs with an existing badge row. Append &style=flat-square (or any other shields.io style) to match the rest, and &metric=tools, &metric=maintenance or &metric=claim to badge a different dimension.

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/dmitryglhf/url-download-mcp'

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