genicam-mcp

by finnhyun12

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: registration (add_producer), discovery (discover_cameras), connection (connect/disconnect), feature inspection (list_features, get_feature), feature modification (set_feature), and image capture (grab). No overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., add_producer, discover_cameras, set_feature). No mixing of conventions.
Tool Count5/5
8 tools is well-scoped for a camera control server. Each tool serves a necessary role without redundancy or bloat.
Completeness4/5
Covers the full lifecycle: producer registration, camera discovery, connection, feature configuration, image capture, and disconnection. Minor gap: no built-in support for continuous or burst capture, but single-frame grab and trigger control via set_feature suffice for basic use.
Average 4.4/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 3.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool reads and returns feature properties, implying a read-only behavior. However, it does not mention potential side effects or required state (e.g., must be connected).
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 concise with two sentences and an Args block. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and adds parameter details directly after.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values are partially covered. The description mentions return fields (value, type, range/options). However, given the camera domain and sibling tools, it lacks context like requiring a connection or that the feature must exist.
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 has 0% coverage for the 'name' parameter, but the description adds meaning: it is a GenICam feature name, case-sensitive, with an example. This provides valuable context beyond the schema.
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 it returns the current value, type, and allowed range/options of a feature. The verb 'returns' and resource 'feature' are specific. Among siblings like 'list_features' and 'set_feature', it distinguishes well.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without mentioning prerequisites (e.g., need connection) or exclusions.
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 are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses auto-casting behavior and error handling (failure returns allowed values in error message), and hints at preconditions. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., implicit changes to dependent features), persistence of settings, or whether the tool requires an active connection. The disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 reasonably concise, with a short introduction followed by behavior details and parameter documentation. The inclusion of an example in the precondition section adds clarity without excessive length. Minor redundancy (e.g., '설정한다' and '설정에 실패하면' could be tighter) but overall well-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?
Given the output schema exists, return values are covered externally. The description covers parameter semantics, failure behavior, and preconditions, which are the main contextual needs for a setter tool with two required parameters. One could argue it should mention that a connected camera is implied, but since sibling tools include connect/disconnect, it's reasonably complete.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description must fully explain parameters. It does so for both 'name' (GenICam feature name) and 'value' (number/string/boolean), adding typing info beyond the schema's minimal type definition. While it could be more detailed (e.g., valid ranges for common features), it provides solid semantics for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.
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 sets GenICam feature values (노출·게인·트리거·픽셀포맷·ROI 등), with specific verb '설정한다' and resource 'GenICam feature'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_features, get_feature, and grab by focusing on setting, not reading or listing. Examples further clarify scope.
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 guidance on when to use this tool by mentioning auto-casting of values and error messages containing allowed ranges if setting fails. It includes a concrete example of a precondition (ExposureAuto must be 'Off' to set ExposureTime), which helps agents avoid common pitfalls. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond precondition context.
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 discloses that the server connects to only one camera at a time and reconnects by disconnecting first. This provides clear behavioral context beyond the name.
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 concise, front-loaded with purpose, and includes usage context and behavioral notes in a well-structured paragraph format.
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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers prerequisites and connection behavior. It could mention error handling or timeouts, but overall sufficient.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the description explains the 'index' parameter as coming from 'discover_cameras()', adding crucial meaning beyond the integer type in 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 '카메라에 연결한다' (connect to camera) and explains its prerequisite role for feature control and capture, distinguishing it from sibling tools like disconnect.
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 indicates when to use (before feature control and capture) and notes behavior when already connected (disconnects first). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives.
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?
The description discloses that the tool does nothing if not connected, which is a helpful behavioral trait. No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden; it is sufficient for a simple action.
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 two sentences, each essential. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and covers the edge case, with 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 zero parameters, an output schema exists, and the tool is simple, the description fully covers the tool's behavior and edge case. No additional information is 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?
There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. Baseline 4 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 verb 'disconnects' and the resource 'current camera connection', and explicitly covers the edge case of doing nothing when not connected, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'connect'.
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 when the agent needs to disconnect a camera, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. The context of siblings like 'connect' makes it clear, but no further guidance is given.
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 discloses registration behavior, call order, multi-vendor usage, and error output with candidates. It does not mention persistence or security implications, but the disclosed behavior is sufficient for typical use.
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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: registration, ordering, multi-vendor usage, error behavior, and parameter description. 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 single parameter and existence of an output schema, the description fully explains the tool's purpose, usage prerequisites, multi-call capability, and error handling. It is complete for its complexity.
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 parameter 'cti_path' is explained as requiring an absolute path, adding meaning beyond the schema's plain string type. With 0% schema coverage, this description fully compensates.
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 verb 'registers' and the resource 'GenTL producer (.cti) file'. It also distinguishes the tool as a prerequisite that must be called before all other tools, differentiating it from sibling camera operation tools.
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 explicitly states that the tool must be called before all others and can be called multiple times for multiple vendors. It also describes error behavior for incorrect paths. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives, which is acceptable given its role as a mandatory setup step.
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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: saves to PNG, handles trigger modes, timeout behavior, and returns size/pixel format/path. It does not mention errors or permissions, but for a simple capture tool this is sufficient.
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 extremely concise with two paragraphs. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds trigger mode context. Every sentence earns its place, and it is front-loaded.
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 presence of an output schema (so return values need not be described), the description covers the essential behavior (capture, save, trigger mode, parameter semantics). Sibling tools are unrelated, so no confusion. The description is complete for this tool.
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?
The single parameter save_path has 0% schema description coverage, but the description fully compensates: it explains that if omitted, the file saves to a temp directory and the path is returned. This adds significant meaning 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 verb 'acquire' and resource '1 frame', and specifies the actions: save as PNG, return size/pixel format/path. It is distinct from sibling tools (connect, add_producer, etc.) that manage camera connections and features.
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 explains when to use based on TriggerMode: 'On' waits for trigger, 'Off' for free-run. It suggests calling set_feature('TriggerMode', 'Off') for free-run capture. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, the context is clear enough.
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?
Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden. It describes the operation as a read-only list, detailing the output fields (name, type, read/write, current value). While it doesn't explicitly state 'read-only', the context is clear.
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 and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second provides usage advice, third details output content, and finally the parameter description. Every sentence adds value.
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 simple interface (one optional parameter, no required fields) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers behavior and return values. It also fits well within the sibling toolset.
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?
The input schema has one optional parameter (category) with 0% description coverage. The description compensates fully by explaining its purpose (filter by category subtree) and providing concrete examples ('AcquisitionControl', 'ImageFormatControl').
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 returns the list of GenICam features provided by the camera. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_feature/set_feature by emphasizing that it should be used first to avoid guessing.
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 provides explicit usage guidance: use this tool before get_feature/set_feature to verify supported features, as they vary per camera. It also explains the optional category parameter for filtering.
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?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it's a read-only discovery enumeration, returns specific data, and provides troubleshooting steps. No hidden side effects or 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?
Two sentences: first states purpose, second provides usage instructions and output details. All information is essential, no fluff. Front-loaded with key 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?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description covers the tool's role comprehensively: what it does, how to use the result, and troubleshooting for empty results. Meets all needs for a no-parameter tool.
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?
There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters; it focuses on output and usage, which is appropriate. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 enumerates connectable cameras from registered producers, specifying the output includes vendor/model/serial/transport type. It differentiates from sibling tools like connect (which uses the index) and list_features.
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 instructs to use the index from this tool with connect(index). Provides diagnostic advice when zero cameras are returned: check power, cable, and .cti transport type match. No ambiguity about when to use.
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:

[![genicam-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/finnhyun12/genicam-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/finnhyun12/genicam-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![genicam-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/finnhyun12/genicam-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/finnhyun12/genicam-mcp)

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/finnhyun12/genicam-mcp'

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