ui-diff-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are mostly distinct but compare_ui_images and discover_ui_diffs both compare screenshots; descriptions clarify deterministic vs model-based, but could cause temporary confusion.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is inconsistent: some tools start with verbs (capture, compare, discover, get, read, start) while ui_diff_model_health is a noun phrase. Also mixing ui_diff and ui_diffs, and get vs read.
Tool Count5/5
7 tools is well-scoped for UI diffing: capture, two compare modes, background run management (start, status, report), and health check. No unnecessary tools.
Completeness4/5
Covers core workflow: capture, compare (sync/async), background run, report retrieval, model health. Minor gap: no tool to list or cancel runs, but not critical.
Average 3.2/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 405 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, the description must cover behavioral traits. It states 'deterministic methods' and 'no visual models', but omits side effects, permissions, performance, or behavior on mismatched images.
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 that immediately states the action. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, lacking structure to cover parameters or context.
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 5 parameters, an output schema, and sibling tools indicating a workflow, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the role of parameters or how this fits into the larger tool suite.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 5 parameters including an enum for 'mode', but the description gives no information about any parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, this is a critical gap.
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 compares expected and actual mobile images using deterministic methods. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'discover_ui_diffs' or 'start_ui_diff_run', but the mention of 'no visual models' hints at its specificity.
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 only notes that it uses deterministic methods, implying a use case where visual models are not wanted. No guidance on when to use this over siblings or prerequisites (e.g., captured images). Lacks explicit context.
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. It mentions visual model-based discovery but lacks details on side effects, duration, permissions needed, or output summary (despite existence of output schema).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences (20 words) and front-loads the main action, but it could be more structured by enumerating inputs or output. It is concise but lacks completeness.
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 5 parameters including an enum, and an output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not mention return values or how the analysis integrates with sibling tools (e.g., read_ui_diff_report).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions. The description only hints at expectedImagePath and actualImagePath via 'compares expected mockup against actual screenshot', but omits mode, runLabel, and projectRoot entirely, failing to compensate for the lack of 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 tool runs full UI diff analysis including visual model-based target discovery and classification, and compares expected mockup against actual screenshot. This distinguishes it from simpler comparison tools like compare_ui_images.
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 its siblings (e.g., compare_ui_images, start_ui_diff_run). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools for specific scenarios.
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, description should disclose behavioral traits but only mentions capture action. No info on side effects, output location, or required permissions.
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?
Single sentence, 12 words, efficient and front-loaded with the core action and methods.
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 output schema exists (not shown), description need not detail return values, but still lacks setup context (device connection) and output format. Adequate for a simple tool but minimal.
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 coverage is 0%, and description adds context by linking the target parameter to the capture methods (adb/ios-simctl), but does not explain implications like Android vs iOS separation.
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?
Clearly states the tool captures a screenshot from a connected mobile device using adb or ios-simctl. Differentiates from sibling tools like compare_ui_images, which focus on analysis rather than capture.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., device must be connected) or when not to use it.
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, and the description only states the basic purpose. It does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, any authentication needs, rate limits, or potential error states. Given the lack of annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context.
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 that clearly states the core function. It front-loads the purpose with no wasted words, but could benefit from a second sentence providing additional context.
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?
With 2 required parameters and an output schema present, the description is minimally complete: it states the function but does not elaborate on the status values or the context of the run. The output schema reduces some burden, but the agent lacks guidance on interpreting the response.
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 0% description coverage; parameters 'runId' and 'projectRoot' have only type and minLength constraints. The description adds no additional meaning to these parameters, so the agent must infer their purpose from the tool name alone.
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 returns the status of a background UI diff run, with a specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'status of a background UI diff run started by start_ui_diff_run'. This distinguishes it from siblings like start_ui_diff_run (starting) and read_ui_diff_report (reading the report).
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 starting a run via start_ui_diff_run, but does not explicitly provide when to use or not use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives or prerequisites. It relies on context from the sibling name.
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?
The description discloses that the tool reads and returns JSON data, implying a non-destructive read operation. However, with no annotations, it carries full burden and lacks details on error handling (e.g., if the file does not exist) or permissions. It is minimally 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the tool's action and subject.
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 simple with one parameter and an output schema. The description covers the basic purpose but lacks workflow context—e.g., that the report path likely comes from a previous step like 'start_ui_diff_run'. It does not mention the output schema existence or how to interpret results. Adequate for a basic tool but could be more helpful.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds no meaning to 'reportPath' beyond the name and type (string). The description does not specify the path format, how to obtain it, or constraints. The parameter is self-explanatory in name, but the tool description fails to provide useful context.
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 reads and returns a previously generated UI diff report JSON file. The verb 'reads and returns' and resource 'previously generated UI diff report' are specific, and it is distinct from sibling tools (e.g., 'capture_mobile_screen', 'start_ui_diff_run').
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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a report must already exist) or that this should be used after starting a diff run. No exclusions or workflow context are given.
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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what happens if models are unhealthy, or any side effects. For a health check, it should at least indicate it has no destructive actions, but this is missing.
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 is front-loaded and gets straight to the point. Ideal conciseness.
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?
An output schema exists, so explaining return values is not required. However, the description is very terse and does not provide any context beyond the basic function. For a health check, one might expect additional context like what constitutes health, but given the simplicity, it is minimally adequate.
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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters. It could have explained what 'health' means, but since there are no parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate.
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 the health of all visual models used by the diff pipeline. It is a specific verb ('checks') and resource ('health of all visual models'), and it is distinct from sibling tools which focus on capturing screens, comparing images, discovering diffs, etc. No ambiguity.
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 before starting a diff run or after an issue. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions for use, or exclusions. It only states what it does, not when to use it.
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 provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It correctly states the tool runs in the background and is non-blocking, but omits details such as authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects like creating persistent state.
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 at two sentences, with each sentence providing distinct value: the first states the action and key behavior, the second gives a usage suggestion. No wasted words.
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 complexity (6 parameters, async) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the async nature and return value adequately. However, it lacks explanation of parameters, required vs optional, and how this tool differs from synchronous siblings like compare_ui_images.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters or their roles. The required paths (expectedImagePath, actualImagePath) are not explained, nor is the mode enum or other optional fields. This provides no assistance to the agent beyond the schema itself.
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 starts a UI diff run asynchronously, returns a runId, and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_ui_diff_run_status and compare_ui_images by emphasizing background execution for large/slow audits.
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 recommends use for large/slow audits and mentions the workflow of polling with get_ui_diff_run_status. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like compare_ui_images for smaller diffs.
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:

[![ui-diff-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ia23a-lachnita/ui-diff-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ia23a-lachnita/ui-diff-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ui-diff-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ia23a-lachnita/ui-diff-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ia23a-lachnita/ui-diff-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/ia23a-lachnita/ui-diff-mcp'

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