Skip to main content
Glama
lfnovo

content-core

by lfnovo
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v2.0.6

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: extract_content retrieves raw content from various sources, while summarize_content processes text to produce a summary. No overlap in functionality.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (extract_content, summarize_content), using snake_case and descriptive verbs.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels minimally scoped. While it covers the basic extract-summarize workflow, the small count suggests a limited surface for a domain that could benefit from additional tools like formatting or source management.

    Completeness3/5

    The pair covers core extraction and summarization operations, but notable gaps exist: no tool for listing supported engines, no content comparison or conversion, and no error-handling utilities. The surface is functional but incomplete for advanced content processing.

  • Average 4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • 0 of 2 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 14 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • 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?

    With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes the requirement for an LLM provider API key and indicates that the tool uses an LLM for summarization. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, costs, or failure modes, leaving some behavioral aspects opaque.

    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 uses a docstring format with sections (Args, Returns), making it structured but slightly verbose. It front-loads the core purpose but adds extra formatting that could be trimmed. It is not overly long but could be more concise.

    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 low schema coverage and absence of annotations, the description provides the essential parameter meanings and return type. It also mentions the critical API key dependency. However, it lacks constraints like maximum content length or edge cases, and the output schema existence lightens the burden but doesn't fully compensate for missing details.

    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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in input schema), but the description adds meaningful explanations for both parameters: 'content' is the text to summarize, and 'context' is optional guidance with an example ('summarize as bullet points'). 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 tool's function: 'Summarize content using LLM with optional context.' It specifies a specific verb-resource relationship and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'extract_content' which serves a different purpose.

    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 mentions a prerequisite (API key configuration) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling 'extract_content'. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that API key is needed for some sources, describes engine override options, and explains the effects of flags like formulas and pictures. It does not mention rate limits or error handling, but still adds significant value.

    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 well-structured with a clear intro, bulleted argument list, and return type. It is relatively concise, though the argument list could be slightly more compact without losing clarity.

    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?

    Given the tool has 6 parameters, no required ones, and an output schema, the description covers all parameters and return type, and provides context on API key requirements. It does not document error cases or additional behavior, but the output schema likely covers structure.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters5/5

    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 explains all 6 parameters (url, file_path, engine, formulas, pictures, no_ocr) with details on their usage and effects, going far beyond what the JSON schema provides.

    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 extracts content from a URL or file, specifies supported sources (web pages, PDFs, YouTube transcripts), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'summarize_content' by its action of extraction.

    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 clear context on when to use the tool, noting that an API key is not needed for most sources but is required for audio/video transcription. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares to the sibling tool beyond the action.

    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

content-core MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

content-core 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/lfnovo/content-core'

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