Skip to main content
Glama
matteuccimarco

SLIM MCP Server

by matteuccimarco
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation2/5

    The two tools are nearly identical: slim_fetch_with_options is explicitly described as the same as slim_fetch but with additional options, making the boundary between them unclear. An agent could use either in most cases, and might not know which one to select without reading the fine print.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tool names share the consistent 'slim_fetch' prefix, with the second adding '_with_options' as a descriptive suffix. This follows a predictable pattern, though the second name is slightly more verbose than a strict verb_noun convention.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a general-purpose fetch tool. The count is borderline but acceptable for a narrow utility that does one thing well, though it could benefit from a separate tool for raw HTML or batch fetching.

    Completeness4/5

    For its stated purpose of fetching web content in SLIM format, the two tools cover the core functionality: basic fetch and fetch with advanced controls. Minor gaps include lack of explicit support for custom headers or authentication, but these are likely handled through the options parameter.

  • Average 3.8/5 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.

  • 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 benefit of faster/smaller responses when excluding media, but also claims support for 'Specific SLIM levels only' without any corresponding parameter in the schema. This misleading hint, combined with a lack of detail about errors, return format, or limitations, leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

    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 reasonably compact, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence and using a bulleted list for use cases. The 'Same as slim_fetch' sentence is useful for orientation, not redundant. It could be tightened, but each sentence serves a purpose.

    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 has 3 parameters, all well-documented in the schema, but no annotations or output schema. The description provides sufficient context for simple use but introduces an unsupported 'SLIM levels' feature and omits details about response format, error handling, or rate limits. Given these gaps, the description is minimally viable but not thorough.

    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 descriptions for all parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by explaining the performance benefit of excluding images/videos, but it does not clarify the 'SLIM levels' concept or provide extra meaning for the 'url' parameter. The schema already handles the heavy lifting.

    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 'Fetch web content in SLIM format with advanced options', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'slim_fetch' by noting 'Same as slim_fetch but with additional control over what content is included', making its unique role explicit.

    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 explicit use cases via a bulleted list: 'To exclude images or videos for faster/smaller responses' and 'Specific SLIM levels only'. It references the sibling tool as the baseline, though it does not explicitly state 'use slim_fetch for basic needs', which would be clearer. Overall, context is clear and actionable.

    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 full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals SLIM's output levels (L1, L3, L5, L7), token reduction benefit, and supported platforms, which adds meaningful context beyond the schema. It does not cover error handling or default behavior, but the provided transparency is substantial.

    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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, then uses compact bullet lists for SLIM levels and supported platforms. Each section earns its place, though it is longer than strictly necessary, which keeps it from a 5.

    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?

    Even without an output schema, the description explains what the response contains (SLIM levels) and which content types are supported. It lacks explicit indication of the default output level and does not compare to the sibling tool, but for a single-parameter tool this is adequately complete.

    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 schema describes the single URL parameter fully, including protocol auto-completion, at 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 opens with "Fetch web content in SLIM format" – a specific verb plus resource, clearly stating what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling slim_fetch_with_options, so it stops short of a 5.

    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?

    It provides clear guidance: "Use this tool when you need to read and understand web pages, articles, documentation, or any online content." However, it does not mention when not to use it or when to prefer slim_fetch_with_options, so it lacks exclusions and alternative comparisons.

    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

slim-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

slim-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/matteuccimarco/slim-mcp-server'

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