Skip to main content
Glama
licc168

htmltolink-mcp

by licc168
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools are unmistakably distinct: 'deploy' triggers a deployment, while 'status' reads the deployment status. There is no overlap in their purposes or outcomes.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both names are concise, lowercase, and single-word, following a predictable command-style pattern. However, 'status' is a noun while 'deploy' is a verb, representing a minor inconsistency in part of speech.

    Tool Count4/5

    With only two tools, the server is minimal but well-aligned to its narrow purpose. It is slightly under the typical range, yet both tools are essential and justify their existence.

    Completeness4/5

    The core deployment workflow is covered: deploying and checking status. A setup or initialization tool could be useful, but the current surface does not present critical gaps for the stated purpose.

  • Average 4.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 2 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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    The description discloses that the tool reads a file (.htmltolink.json), implying a read-only operation. However, it does not specify permissions, error behavior if the file is missing, or return format. The phrase 'current project' is ambiguous relative to the required project_dir parameter.

    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 concise sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource.

    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?

    The tool lacks annotations and an output schema, and the description does not explain the return value shape or error conditions. The ambiguity between 'current project' and the required project_dir parameter could mislead an agent. While the tool is simple, critical details for invocation are missing.

    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 schema already fully describes project_dir. The description adds context by indicating that project_dir is used to locate .htmltolink.json, giving the parameter operational meaning beyond its type definition.

    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 identifies the action (Check), the target (deployment status), and the method (by reading .htmltolink.json). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'deploy' which is a mutation action.

    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 implies the tool is for verifying deployment state, which is a distinct context from the sibling 'deploy'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

    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 the deployment process: packages the project as ZIP, uploads it, and returns a shareable link. It also describes the --next mode behavior (auto-detects Next.js, runs static export, deploys out/). However, it does not mention authentication requirements, possible side effects like overwriting existing deployments, or rate limits, which are relevant for a mutation tool.

    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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a second sentence for important process details. There is zero fluff, and every piece of information is relevant and necessary.

    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 absence of an output schema, the description appropriately states that it returns a shareable link. It covers the deployment flow, the --next mode, and all parameters are documented in the input schema. It lacks some edge-case information like error handling or whether the URL is stable across deployments, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

    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 input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all four parameters. The description itself does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only mentions 'next' mode in general terms, which is already captured in the schema for the 'next' property.

    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 action: 'Deploy the current project to htmlto.link and get a live public URL.' It also describes the process (packages ZIP, uploads, returns link) and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'status' by focusing on the deployment action rather than checking status.

    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 makes it clear when to use this tool: when you want to deploy a project and receive a live URL. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but its context is unambiguous compared to the only sibling 'status'. The mention of '--next mode' provides additional guidance for Next.js projects.

    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

htmltolink-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

htmltolink-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/licc168/htmltolink-mcp'

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