Skip to main content
Glama
madeinphantom

obscuraai-mcp

by madeinphantom
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.4

  • Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools, as there are no other tools to compare it to. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and distinct by default.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Since there is only one tool, naming consistency is inherently perfect. The tool name 'generate_obscura_workflow' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, but there are no other tools to assess consistency across a set.

    Tool Count2/5

    A single tool is too few for the server's apparent purpose of generating and managing visual AI automation workflows, as it lacks operations for viewing, editing, or exporting workflows beyond the initial generation. This minimal scope will likely cause agent failures due to incomplete functionality.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for the domain of workflow automation; it only provides generation without any CRUD operations (e.g., no tools to list, update, delete, or retrieve existing workflows), leaving significant gaps that will hinder agent effectiveness.

  • Average 3.2/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output ('shareable link') and that the workflow can be 'viewed, edited, and exported,' but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether the generation is idempotent. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

    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 concise and front-loaded, stating the purpose and output in the first sentence. The second sentence adds usage context without redundancy. Both sentences earn their place, but minor improvements in clarity could push it to a perfect score.

    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 no annotations and no output schema, the description partially compensates by explaining the output format and usage. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like error conditions or performance, and does not fully address the complexity of a workflow generation tool. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

    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 description does not explicitly discuss parameters, but the input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters. The description implies parameter use through 'Describe the business process to automate' but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

    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 tool's purpose: 'Generate a visual AI automation workflow for a business process.' It specifies the verb ('Generate') and resource ('visual AI automation workflow'), and mentions the output ('Returns a shareable link to an interactive canvas on obscuraai.xyz'). However, since there are no sibling tools, it cannot distinguish from alternatives, preventing a perfect score.

    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 provides some usage guidance: 'Use when a user wants to map out an automation, workflow, or AI system for their business.' This implies the context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives. Since there are no sibling tools, the lack of alternatives is understandable, but the guidance remains basic.

    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

obscuraai-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

obscuraai-mcp-server 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/madeinphantom/obscuraai-mcp-server'

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