Skip to main content
Glama
johnymontana

excalidraw-export-mcp

by johnymontana
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.0.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: single export, batch export, and metadata retrieval. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Two tools use the 'export_excalidraw' prefix consistently, but 'get_excalidraw_info' deviates by using 'get_' instead of 'export_'. Minor inconsistency.

    Tool Count4/5

    Three tools is a reasonable, focused set for the server's purpose of exporting and inspecting Excalidraw diagrams. Not overly thin.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool surface covers the core functionality (single/batch export and metadata). Missing features like format conversion or diagram editing are outside the stated scope.

  • Average 3.5/5 across 3 of 3 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.

  • 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 provided, and description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as file creation behavior, overwrite policy, side effects, or performance considerations. Minimal for a batch operation.

    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 with no wasted words. Front-loaded with essential information (batch export, formats).

    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?

    With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, description lacks details on output behavior, error handling, and naming conventions. Inadequate for an agent to use confidently.

    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 100%, so description adds no extra meaning beyond parameter descriptions in schema. Baseline score of 3 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?

    Description clearly states verb 'Export', resource 'multiple Excalidraw diagrams', and formats 'PNG or SVG in batch'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling 'export_excalidraw' which likely handles single files.

    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?

    Description implies batch usage but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'export_excalidraw'. No guidance on prerequisites or context.

    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 adds one behavioral detail: it uses a headless browser for rendering identical to excalidraw.com. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., file creation, overwriting behavior), performance implications, or required permissions. The rendered output fidelity is a positive but incomplete disclosure.

    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 highly concise, consisting of two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value—the first states the action and formats, the second clarifies the rendering method. There is no redundant or filler content.

    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 complexity of 6 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the primary action but lacks details on output file behavior (e.g., where files are saved, naming conventions, return values). It mentions rendering quality but not the process of file creation or error handling. The description is adequate for a simple tool but incomplete for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema.

    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 100% (all parameters have descriptions in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema—it does not explain parameter usage, constraints, or relationships. The schema itself provides adequate documentation, but the description contributes nothing extra.

    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 exports an Excalidraw diagram to PNG or SVG format, with the added detail of using a headless browser for pixel-perfect rendering. The verb 'Export' and resource 'Excalidraw diagram' are specific, and the mention of formats distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_excalidraw_batch (batch export) and get_excalidraw_info (info retrieval).

    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 siblings (export_excalidraw_batch for batch, get_excalidraw_info for information). There is no mention of prerequisites, context for use, or alternatives. The tool's purpose is implied but not contrasted with similar tools.

    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 carries full burden. It correctly indicates a read operation (get metadata) with no side effects, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details like error handling, performance, or file existence requirements.

    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, no waste, front-loaded with action and resource. Every word earns its place.

    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 no output schema. The description lists example metadata but ends with 'etc.', leaving the full response structure undefined. Adequate but incomplete.

    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 100% (parameter described). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which already states 'Absolute path to the .excalidraw file'. Baseline score 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly states the resource 'metadata about an Excalidraw diagram', specifying the types of metadata (element count, types, dimensions). It effectively distinguishes from sibling export tools.

    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 when metadata is needed rather than export, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide any when-not guidance. Usage is implicit.

    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

excalidraw-export-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

excalidraw-export-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/johnymontana/excalidraw-export-mcp'

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