Skip to main content
Glama
falahgs

Gemini Imagen 3.0 MCP Server

by falahgs
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
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: generate_images creates new images via AI, while create_image_html produces HTML img tags from existing file paths. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tool names follow a verb_noun pattern (generate_images and create_image_html). The verbs 'generate' and 'create' are similar but not identical, and the nouns differ in structure (plural vs. compound), but the overall pattern is consistent and readable.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels somewhat thin. While the scope is narrow (image generation and HTML formatting), this is borderline on the low end; a small utility set would benefit from at least one additional tool for managing or inspecting generated images.

    Completeness3/5

    The core workflow of generating images and then creating HTML for viewing is covered, but there are notable gaps: no way to list, delete, or manage previously generated images, and no tool to adjust model parameters beyond what might be embedded in generate_images. This limits the server to a single-generation flow.

  • Average 3.1/5 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

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • 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 carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining side effects, response format, rate limits, costs, or whether images are saved or returned. This is insufficient for a generation tool with side effects.

    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 a single concise sentence with no redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it is possibly too brief for a tool that would benefit from usage guidance. Still, it earns its place as a clear one-line summary.

    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's complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not clarify what the generated images look like, how they are returned, or how the category and numberOfImages parameters affect behavior. The sibling tool's existence also suggests more context is needed.

    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 input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions the model provider. Since schema coverage is 100%, no significant gap exists.

    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 tool generates images using Google Gemini AI, which is a specific verb-resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool create_image_html, so some ambiguity remains about when to choose one over the other.

    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?

    No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus create_image_html or any alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts where sibling tools would be more appropriate.

    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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'gallery view' but does not specify the output format (e.g., HTML string, file write), side effects, or any prerequisites, leaving significant gaps.

    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, succinct sentence that directly conveys the core function without unnecessary words or repetition.

    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?

    The tool is relatively simple and the schema covers all parameters, but the description omits the return type or whether it returns an HTML fragment or full document. Without an output schema, this missing context leaves the agent unsure about the tool's exact behavior.

    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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the 'gallery' parameter by referencing 'gallery view,' but does not elaborate on details like the exact CSS behavior or default values. This aligns with the baseline of 3.

    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 creates HTML img tags from image file paths, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool generate_images, which presumably generates images rather than HTML.

    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?

    No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tool generate_images is present but never mentioned in the description, so the agent has no basis for choosing between them.

    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

imagen-3.0-generate-google-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

imagen-3.0-generate-google-mcp-server 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/falahgs/imagen-3.0-generate-google-mcp-server'

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