Skip to main content
Glama
jeanpfs

stock-images-mcp

by jeanpfs
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

75%
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 for searching images and one for downloading them. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool based on the task.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (search_images, download_image) with clear, descriptive verbs. The naming is uniform and predictable throughout the set.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels under-scoped for a stock image domain. A typical stock image service would benefit from additional operations like filtering results, viewing image details, or managing downloads, making this set too minimal for effective agent workflows.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for stock image operations. It lacks basic CRUD-like functions such as viewing image metadata, filtering searches, or handling multiple providers beyond Pexels. This will likely cause agent failures when trying to perform common tasks in this domain.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 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 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.

  • This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.

  • 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.

  • View related servers

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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions downloading to a local folder but lacks details on permissions needed, file system impacts, error handling, or rate limits. For a tool that writes to disk, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

    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 front-loads the core action and destination without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and gets straight to the point.

    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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that performs file system writes. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error responses, or output format, which are critical for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

    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 input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'stock image' for the URL, but this is minimal value. 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 action ('download') and resource ('stock image') with destination ('to local folder'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling 'search_images' tool, which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.

    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 the sibling 'search_images' or any alternatives. The description implies usage for downloading stock images but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without contextual 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 but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, response format, or what happens when providers fail. For a search tool with no 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.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. It's appropriately sized for a search tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

    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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (image metadata, URLs, thumbnails?), how results are structured, or any limitations beyond the basic purpose. The agent would need to guess about the output format and behavioral characteristics.

    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 fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'available providers: pexels' which partially explains the provider parameter, but doesn't clarify the relationship between 'pexels' and the enum values or what 'all' means. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 verb 'search' and resource 'stock images across providers', with specific mention of 'pexels' as an available provider. It distinguishes from the sibling 'download_image' by focusing on search rather than download, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

    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 like 'download_image'. It mentions 'available providers: pexels' but doesn't explain when to choose specific providers or what 'all' means in practice. No usage context or exclusions are provided.

    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

stock-images-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

stock-images-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/jeanpfs/stock-images-mcp'

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