Skip to main content
Glama
frankdeno

FLUX Image Generator MCP Server

by frankdeno
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

42%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation2/5

    The tools have significant overlap in purpose, with all three focused on generating images from text prompts. 'generateImage' and 'quickImage' are particularly ambiguous—both generate a single image based on a prompt, differing only in default settings versus customizable ones. 'batchGenerateImages' is more distinct as it handles multiple prompts, but the overall set lacks clear boundaries.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    The naming is mixed in style: 'batchGenerateImages' uses camelCase, while 'generateImage' and 'quickImage' are more descriptive but follow a similar verbNoun pattern. There's no consistent casing convention, and the verbs ('batchGenerate', 'generate', 'quick') vary without a clear pattern, making it readable but not predictable.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 3 tools, the count feels thin for an image generation server, as it lacks operations for managing or editing images. However, it covers basic generation tasks, so it's borderline—adequate for minimal functionality but could benefit from more comprehensive coverage.

    Completeness2/5

    The server is severely incomplete for an image generation domain. It only offers generation tools with no ability to retrieve, update, delete, or edit images. There are no tools for managing image metadata, applying filters, or handling errors, which are common in such systems, leading to significant gaps in agent workflows.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 3 of 3 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 full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't describe what happens during generation (e.g., processing order, error handling), output format, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read/write operation. The description merely states what the tool does without revealing how it behaves.

    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 - a single sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place in communicating the essential purpose.

    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?

    For a batch generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address critical context like what the tool returns (image URLs, file paths, error information), how multiple prompts are processed, or any behavioral characteristics. The agent would need to guess about important operational aspects.

    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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain prompt formatting expectations, width/height constraints, or customPath usage scenarios. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

    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 ('generate multiple images') and the resource ('from a list of prompts'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from 'generateImage' by specifying 'multiple' images, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'quickImage' which might imply a similar batch capability.

    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 the sibling tools 'generateImage' or 'quickImage'. There's no mention of use cases, prerequisites, performance considerations, or alternative selection criteria, leaving the agent with insufficient context for optimal tool selection.

    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 the model (FLUX) but fails to describe key traits like rate limits, authentication needs, output format (e.g., image file type), error handling, or performance characteristics. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves external API calls and resource-intensive operations.

    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 is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

    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 complexity of an image generation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects, usage guidelines, and output details (e.g., how the image is returned), which are crucial for proper tool invocation in this context.

    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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain prompt best practices or safety tolerance implications). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

    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 ('Generate an image') and specifies the resource (using Black Forest Lab's FLUX model based on a text prompt), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'batchGenerateImages' or 'quickImage', which might offer batch processing or faster generation, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

    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 such as 'batchGenerateImages' or 'quickImage'. It lacks context about scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without explicit usage instructions beyond the basic function.

    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. It mentions 'quickly' and 'default settings,' hinting at speed and simplicity, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format (e.g., image type, size), or whether it's a read-only or mutating operation. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

    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 waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

    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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation-like tool (image generation), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output handling, and differentiation from siblings. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for effective agent use.

    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 ('prompt' and 'customPath'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'default settings' might affect generation, but it doesn't clarify parameter interactions or usage. 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.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'generate an image based on a text prompt with default settings.' It specifies the verb ('generate') and resource ('image'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generateImage' or 'batchGenerateImages' beyond mentioning 'default settings.'

    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 its siblings. It mentions 'default settings,' which might imply a simpler or faster alternative, but it doesn't specify contexts, exclusions, or named alternatives like 'batchGenerateImages' for batch processing or 'generateImage' for more control.

    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

flux-image-generator-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

flux-image-generator-mcp 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/frankdeno/flux-image-generator-mcp'

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