Skip to main content
Glama
gammaremover

gamma-watermark-remover-mcp

Official
by gammaremover
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
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 clearly distinct purposes: one checks file support, the other removes the watermark. No overlap in functionality.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: check_gamma_watermark_support and remove_gamma_watermark.

    Tool Count5/5

    With only 2 tools, the server is tightly scoped to its single purpose of watermark removal, and both tools are necessary for the workflow.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool surface covers validation (check) and action (remove), which is complete for the narrow domain of Gamma watermark removal from PDF/PPTX files.

  • Average 3.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 6 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool checks format and returns guidance, but does not specify behavior for missing files, permissions, or error handling. It does disclose it is a read-only check, but lacks depth.

    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 with a front-loaded purpose statement, followed by clearly separated Args and Returns sections. 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?

    The tool is simple with one input and an output schema provided. The description covers the main purpose and return guidance. However, it lacks details on the nature of the guidance (e.g., error codes, messages). Slight gap, but overall complete for its complexity.

    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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds 'path to the file to check' beyond the parameter name, but does not specify path format or existence guarantee. Adequate but not detailed.

    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 checks whether a file is a supported Gamma export format (.pdf/.pptx). The verb 'check' and resource 'file' are specific. The sibling tool 'remove_gamma_watermark' suggests this is a validation step, providing differentiation.

    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?

    Usage is implied as a pre-check before processing (e.g., removing watermarks), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remove_gamma_watermark'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned.

    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, the description carries full burden. It discloses the removal action and output summary but omits behavioral traits like permissions, file modification side effects, or error handling. Meets minimum adequacy.

    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 a clear first sentence. Args/Returns sections add structure without verbosity. Minor improvement: front-loading the purpose more prominently.

    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 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the core workflow. However, it lacks context on edge cases (e.g., file not found, unsupported types, large files) and prerequisites.

    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%, yet the description adds meaningful context: file_path is absolute path, output_path is optional with default naming. This compensates well for the missing schema descriptions.

    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 action ('remove') and the specific resource ('Made with Gamma' watermark from PDF/PPTX). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'check_gamma_watermark_support' by focusing on removal, not checking.

    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 after checking support via sibling tool but lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. It doesn't mention prerequisites like file being Gamma-exported.

    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

gamma-watermark-remover-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

gamma-watermark-remover-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/gammaremover/gamma-watermark-remover-mcp'

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