Skip to main content
Glama
exoticknight

File Merger MCP Server

by exoticknight
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one lists accessible directories for context, while the other performs the core file merging operation. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool based on the task.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern (list_allowed_directories and merge_files), using clear verbs that describe their actions. The naming is predictable and readable throughout the set.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels under-scoped for a file merging domain. While the tools cover basic operations, there are likely missing functionalities such as file validation, conflict resolution, or format-specific merging that would enhance completeness. A count of 2 is too low for robust file handling.

    Completeness2/5

    The toolset is severely incomplete for file merging. It lacks essential operations like checking file compatibility, handling merge conflicts, supporting different merge strategies (e.g., concatenation vs. intelligent merging), or providing previews. This will likely cause agent failures when dealing with complex merging scenarios.

  • Average 4.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 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 Apache 2.0.

  • 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

  • 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 does well by disclosing key behaviors: it describes the sequential reading and writing process, specifies that it returns operation information (file sizes and total size), and mentions path restrictions ('within allowed directories if specified'). It doesn't cover error handling or performance aspects, but provides solid operational 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by operational details and constraints in three concise sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second explains the process, the third specifies the return and restrictions. 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?

    Given the tool's moderate complexity (file merging operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains the action, process, return values, and constraints. It could improve by detailing error cases or output format, but covers essential context for an agent to use it effectively.

    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 already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the order of processing ('in the order provided') and path constraints, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

    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 specific action ('merge multiple files into a single output file'), identifies the resource ('files'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'list_allowed_directories' by focusing on file operations rather than directory listing. It provides a complete picture of what the tool does.

    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?

    The description implies usage by mentioning 'all specified paths must be within allowed directories if specified,' which suggests a prerequisite but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide clear exclusions. It lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over other file operations.

    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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature by stating it 'returns' data, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or response format. It adds some context about server access constraints, but behavioral traits are minimally covered.

    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?

    Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently structured.

    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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete—it explains what the tool does and when to use it. However, it lacks details on return format or error handling, leaving minor gaps in full contextual understanding.

    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 coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on purpose and usage without redundant parameter details, meeting the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

    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 specific action ('Returns the list of directories') and resource ('that this server is allowed to access'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'merge_files' by focusing on directory discovery rather than file operations.

    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 this tool ('before trying to merge files') and provides a clear alternative context, guiding the agent to use it for preparatory directory discovery rather than file manipulation.

    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

mcp-file-merger MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-file-merger 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/exoticknight/mcp-file-merger'

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