NiiVue MCP Server

by gaiborjosue

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity: get_niivue_api fetches API method details, get_niivue_doc fetches doc page content, get_niivue_overview returns the overview, list_niivue_docs lists docs, search_niivue_api searches API methods, and search_niivue_docs searches documentation. The tools are well-differentiated by their target resource (API vs. docs) and action (get vs. list vs. search).
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'niivue' as a prefix, using snake_case throughout. The verbs (get, list, search) are applied predictably to the nouns (api, doc, overview, docs), making the naming highly consistent and readable.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of accessing Niivue documentation and API information. Each tool earns its place by covering distinct aspects like fetching, listing, and searching, without being too sparse or bloated, which is ideal for a documentation-focused server.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for accessing and searching Niivue documentation and API details, with no obvious gaps for the stated purpose. Minor gaps might include lack of update or delete operations, but these are not expected in a read-only documentation context, so the surface is nearly complete.
Average 2.9/5 across 6 of 6 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 BSD 2-Clause "Simplified" 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

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 states the tool fetches details but doesn't describe what 'full details' includes, potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.
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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy 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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context for an agent to reliably use this tool, especially with sibling tools that might overlap, leaving key operational details unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('name') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't add any semantic details about this parameter. It doesn't explain what 'name' refers to (e.g., API method name, identifier format, examples), failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 with a specific verb ('fetch') and resource ('full details for a specific Niivue API method'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_niivue_api' or 'get_niivue_overview', which might have overlapping functionality.
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. With siblings like 'search_niivue_api' and 'get_niivue_overview', it's unclear if this tool is for detailed lookups, general searches, or other contexts, leaving the agent without usage direction.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches content, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'full content' includes (e.g., text, metadata, images). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool 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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for conciseness.
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 has no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error cases, or how it differs from siblings, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'page' as the parameter but doesn't explain what a 'page' is (e.g., a page name, ID, URL), valid formats, or examples. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's structural definition.
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 ('fetch full content') and resource ('Niivue doc page'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_niivue_docs' (which likely lists pages) and 'search_niivue_docs' (which searches content), but could be more specific about what 'full content' entails compared to other tools.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for fetching content, or differentiate from siblings like 'get_niivue_overview' or 'search_niivue_docs', leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.
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. While it states the tool searches API methods, it doesn't describe what the search returns (method signatures, documentation snippets, etc.), whether results are paginated, what happens when no matches are found, or any performance characteristics. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's 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?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's core function. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand at a glance.
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 search tool with 2 parameters (one required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes a successful search, what format results are returned in, how the limit parameter works, or how this tool differs from its siblings. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters, the description provides no information about what the 'query' parameter should contain (keywords, exact names, partial matches) or what the 'limit' parameter controls (number of results, pagination). The description mentions searching 'by name or description' which gives minimal context for the query parameter but nothing about format or the limit parameter's purpose.
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 as searching Niivue API methods by name or description, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from its sibling tools like 'search_niivue_docs' or 'get_niivue_api', which appear to perform similar search/retrieval functions in the same domain.
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 sibling tools. With multiple similar tools available (get_niivue_api, search_niivue_docs, etc.), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred over alternatives.
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 full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions BM25 as the search algorithm, which hints at ranking behavior, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or error handling. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 purpose and includes a technical detail (BM25) that adds value without verbosity.
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, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key aspects like what the search returns, how results are structured, or error conditions. For a tool with two parameters and complex search behavior, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter details. It doesn't explain what 'query' should contain (e.g., keywords, phrases) or how 'limit' affects results (e.g., max number of docs). This leaves both parameters semantically unclear beyond their types.
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 ('Search') and target resource ('Niivue documentation'), and specifies the search algorithm ('with BM25'), which adds technical specificity. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_niivue_api' or 'list_niivue_docs', leaving ambiguity about 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_niivue_api' or 'list_niivue_docs'. The description implies it's for searching documentation, but without explicit context or exclusions, the agent must infer usage based on tool names alone.
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 states the tool returns something, but doesn't describe what 'CLAUDE.md overview' entails (e.g., format, content type, size), whether it's a read-only operation, or any potential errors or limitations, leaving significant gaps in understanding its 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?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the key action and resource efficiently, making it easy to parse and understand at a glance without any redundant or verbose language.
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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimal but incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'CLAUDE.md overview' is, how it differs from other documentation tools, or what the return value looks like, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use despite the low 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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing unnecessary information.
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 ('Return') and the specific resource ('CLAUDE.md overview for Niivue'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_niivue_doc' or 'list_niivue_docs', which might also return documentation-related content, leaving some ambiguity about uniqueness.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_niivue_doc' and 'list_niivue_docs' available, the description lacks context on whether this tool is for a specific overview file, general documentation, or other use cases, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists docs and metadata, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this returns summaries, full details, pagination behavior, or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or differentiation from siblings. For a list operation with no structured guidance, it meets basic requirements but leaves room for improvement.
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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter documentation in the description. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters that don't exist.
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 with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Niivue docs and metadata'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'search_niivue_docs' or 'get_niivue_doc', which would be needed for a perfect score.
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. With siblings like 'search_niivue_docs' and 'get_niivue_doc' available, there's no indication whether this lists all docs, filtered docs, or serves a different purpose, leaving the agent without usage context.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![niivue-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/gaiborjosue/niivue-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/gaiborjosue/niivue-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/gaiborjosue/niivue-mcp'

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