Uploadkit

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.5
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clear, distinct purpose. There is no overlap between installation, scaffolding, component discovery, documentation, and BYOS configuration tools. An agent can easily select the right tool for each task.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using underscores (e.g., get_install_command, scaffold_route_handler, search_components). No mixing of conventions, making it predictable and easy to understand.
Tool Count5/5
With 11 tools, the set is well-scoped for its purpose—covering installation, scaffolding, component discovery, documentation, and BYOS configuration. No tool feels extraneous, and the count is manageable without being too thin.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers the full developer workflow: install, set up route handler and provider, get quickstart, discover and retrieve components, search and fetch documentation, and configure BYOS. There are no obvious gaps for the stated domain of setting up UploadKit.
Average 4.7/5 across 11 of 11 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 1 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 36 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on June 12, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
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.
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

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: read-only, deterministic, no network calls, no secrets exposed. It also notes the return structure. Could mention error handling for invalid provider, but schema covers validation.
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 well-structured with three clear paragraphs: purpose, usage guidelines, and return details. No redundant sentences, appropriately sized for the information provided.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no output schema, the description fully explains the return format (three sections) and key properties (plain-text string, credentials server-side). No gaps remain for agent understanding.
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 100% and the schema already provides detailed descriptions for each enum value. The tool description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 that the tool generates a BYOS configuration for a specific storage provider, using a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('Bring-Your-Own-Storage configuration for an UploadKit Next.js handler'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like scaffold_provider by focusing on config generation.
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?
Explicitly states 'When to use:' with specific triggers (compliance, existing infra, vendor lock-in). Does not provide when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the key behavioral trait: it is read-only and never touches the filesystem, only generating text output. Since no annotations are provided, this carries full burden and does so effectively, with no contradictions.
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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core action and key details. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary verbosity.
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 simplicity of the tool (code generation with clear output), the description covers essential context: the exact file path to write, the return format, and the read-only nature. It could mention error handling or file creation confirmation, but the current level is sufficient for an informed agent.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds some context (e.g., the output format and disc attributes), but the schema already provides detailed descriptions with examples and defaults for each parameter. Thus, the description adds marginal value beyond 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 generates complete file content for a Next.js App Router upload route handler, specifying the exact file path and that it returns a compilable TypeScript file. It distinguishes from sibling tools which deal with config, components, or documentation.
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 includes an explicit 'When to use' section that provides context for when this tool is appropriate. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, the usage context is clear and sufficient for an AI agent to decide.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool is read-only, idempotent, and never modifies anything. It also describes the return format. This is strong disclosure for a simple read 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 succinct with three focused paragraphs: purpose, usage guidelines, and return/safety. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: return format, usage context, parameter defaults, and behavioral traits. No gaps identified.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the context for package manager detection, defaults, and examples for package subsets. This enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema alone.
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 specifies the tool's purpose: returning the exact shell command to install UploadKit packages for a given package manager. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_components or get_doc.
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 explicit guidance on when to use: before asking the user to add dependencies, and to match the package manager. It suggests detection based on lockfiles. While it does not explicitly list exclusions, the sibling tools are distinct enough that no confusion arises.
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, the description carries full burden. It states the tool is 'Read-only, no side effects, idempotent' and describes the return JSON shape. This is sufficient for a list tool, though further details like authentication or rate limits are omitted.
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 concise, with three sections (purpose, when to use, returns) that are appropriately front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what is returned, when to use, and the general behavior. The context signals show high schema coverage, and the description effectively complements the structured data.
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 schema covers the single parameter 'category' with 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so no improvement.
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 states exactly what the tool does: lists all React upload components with specific fields (name, category, description, inspiration). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_component and search_components by its purpose and output structure.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'When to use: before recommending or scaffolding any UploadKit component' and gives an example about browsing dropzone variants. This clearly guides the agent on context and contrasts with other tools.
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 carries the full burden and declares read-only, idempotent, case-insensitive behavior. This is good, though it could mention any rate limits or permission requirements if applicable. Still, it provides sufficient transparency.
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?
Three well-structured sentences: purpose+examples, usage guidance, return format+behavior. Every sentence adds unique value with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description explicitly states the return structure (JSON with query, count, matches array with name, category, description, inspiration). Combined with parameter clarity and behavioral notes, it is fully complete for the tool's purpose.
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 input schema already describes the 'query' parameter well (100% coverage). The description adds value by giving concrete examples and explaining the fuzzy-search nature, going beyond the schema's substring match description.
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 performs fuzzy-search of the UploadKit component catalog by free-text keyword, providing multiple examples. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'list_components' by specifying that it is for discovery rather than enumeration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use (user describes vibe but no component name) and when to prefer alternatives (list_components for enumeration). The second sentence provides clear context for choosing this tool over its sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description fully covers behavioral traits: it is read-only, idempotent, returns JSON with specific fields, and on no match returns a suggestion message with the 5 closest matches.
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 concise with three short paragraphs, each adding essential information: what it returns, when to use, and behavior on error. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, input requirements, return structure, error behavior, and usage 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?
The input schema covers the parameter 'name' with a detailed description including examples and case sensitivity. The description adds value by reiterating case-sensitivity and the requirement that the name must match from list_components, but the schema already does most of the work.
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 it fetches metadata and a React usage example for one specific UploadKit component. It distinguishes from siblings like list_components or search_components by specifying that it requires an exact component name and returns a usage example.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states 'When to use: once you know the exact component name (from list_components or search_components) and need to show the user how to drop it into their code.' This gives clear context and mentions the prerequisite tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses return type (plain-text markdown), no parameters, read-only nature, static content, and idempotency, covering all behavioral traits.
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 concise with well-organized sections: what it does, when to use, what it returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: content, usage conditions, and alternatives. It is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description confirms 'Takes no parameters,' which is sufficient. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and no additional detail is needed.
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 returns a complete quickstart walkthrough for Next.js, enumerating specific components (install, env, route handler, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning the scope and content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides when to use (brand-new users asking general questions) and when to prefer alternatives (specific steps), naming sibling tools like scaffold_route_handler and get_install_command.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description fully compensates by declaring read-only, static at bundle time, idempotent, and describing return format and sorting. Transparent about behavior.
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?
Three well-structured sentences with front-loaded purpose, usage guidance, and return format. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides complete context: purpose, usage, return shape (JSON with fields), sorting, and safety guarantees.
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?
No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. Description adds nothing about parameters, which is appropriate since none exist.
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?
Clearly states the tool enumerates all docs pages with title, description, URL, and path. Differentiates from sibling search_docs by specifying when to use each.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use (discovery before targeted searching) and when to prefer search_docs (concrete question). Provides clear decision guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, description explicitly states read-only, deterministic, idempotent, and explains no parameters and fixed endpoint. Fully discloses behavior.
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?
Three short paragraphs, each serving a clear purpose: what it returns, when to use, additional traits. Front-loaded with the main outcome. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Fully covers all needed information for a zero-parameter tool: return format (plain text with code block), location (app/layout.tsx), dependency (scaffold_route_handler), and safety guarantees. No output schema needed.
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?
No parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. Description goes beyond by explaining why there are no parameters (endpoint path always /api/uploadkit from scaffold_route_handler), which adds value.
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?
Description clearly states it returns a ready-to-paste snippet for Next.js root layout with UploadKitProvider, which is a specific verb+resource. Distinguishes from sibling scaffold_route_handler by specifying it's the next step in wiring.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'When to use: right after scaffold_route_handler' and warns that without it, components throw at runtime. Provides clear context and alternative (scaffold_route_handler).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses read-only and idempotent behavior, return format, and error handling (not-found message suggesting list_docs). No annotations were provided, so description carries full burden and meets it.
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?
Three sentences: purpose, usage, and return/error. No wasted words, front-loaded with key info.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description explains return format. Only one parameter with full details. Safety (read-only) is covered. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed description. The description adds extra context: examples of valid paths and instructions to get them from search_docs or list_docs.
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 fetches full markdown content by path, formatted with specific parts. It distinguishes from siblings like search_docs and list_docs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says to use after search_docs, prefers search_docs first, and explains why full page read avoids snippet gaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description fully compensates: discloses read-only nature, bundled index (no network call), sorted results, build-time freshness, and scope limitations.
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?
Front-loaded with main action, followed by scope, usage guidelines, and return format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description thoroughly explains return format (JSON structure). Combined with full parameter coverage and behavioral details, it is perfectly complete for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage, but description adds significant value: query parameter details (ANDed, per-field weighting, examples), limit parameter with default, range, and usage guidance for narrow vs. exploratory scans.
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?
Clearly states full-text search across all UploadKit docs pages (88+ pages, specific categories), ranks by keyword frequency, and distinguishes from sibling component tools by listing covered topics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit 'When to use' section with specific scenarios (middleware, webhooks, etc.) and implies alternative when component tools suffice, providing clear context for tool selection.
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:

[![uploadkit MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/drumst0ck/uploadkit/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/drumst0ck/uploadkit)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![uploadkit MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/drumst0ck/uploadkit/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/drumst0ck/uploadkit)

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/drumst0ck/uploadkit'

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