Skip to main content
Glama
jayjpatel9717

caido-screenshot

by jayjpatel9717
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.2.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The tool has a single, clearly defined purpose (capturing a screenshot of a Caido Replay session), so an agent cannot misselect it.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The single tool follows a consistent snake_case naming convention (caido_screenshot), which is clear and predictable. There is no mix of styles or verbs to create inconsistency.

    Tool Count3/5

    The server provides only one tool, which feels thin for a typical MCP server. However, the tool targets a very specific, narrow use case (Caido Replay screenshot capture), so the count may be appropriate for that focused purpose, but it is borderline.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool covers the core workflow of capturing a formatted screenshot from a Replay session, including verification and metadata return. There are minor gaps (e.g., no options for custom layout or output format), but for its stated purpose, it is essentially complete.

  • Average 4.5/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 7 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

  • Behavior5/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It discloses multiple behavioral traits: uses a specific layout, verifies the selected session, requires a rendered response by default, rejects stale previews, saves a PNG, and returns path plus metadata. This gives the agent a strong understanding of what happens during execution.

    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, opening with the core action and then efficiently enumerating prerequisites and key behaviors. It avoids unnecessary verbosity while covering all essential aspects, 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.

    Completeness5/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the complexity of the tool (multiple preconditions, specific layout, output behavior), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to use it. It clearly states the environment requirements, what is verified, and what is returned, without needing an output schema. The description is complete enough for operational 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?

    The schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for each parameter, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add additional insight beyond the schema's parameter explanations; it merely references the default behavior of require_response without expanding on relationships or interdependencies.

    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 captures a formatted screenshot of a Caido Replay request/response using the Screenshot Mode plugin, specifying the exact resource and action. It also distinguishes itself by mentioning the Side by Side layout and the plugin, which sets it apart from generic screenshot 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 provides explicit preconditions for use (Caido running with --remote-debugging-port, Replay session open) and mentions key behaviors (requires rendered response, rejects stale previews). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, the specific prerequisites and layout make the intended use case clear.

    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

Caido-Screenshot MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

Caido-Screenshot 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/jayjpatel9717/Caido-Screenshot'

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