cws-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.4.1
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but update-metadata and update-metadata-ui both update metadata via different methods, which could cause confusion. The descriptions help differentiate, but an agent might still misselect.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names consistently use lowercase with hyphens, but there is a mix of verbs (cancel, publish, upload) and nouns (status, deploy-percentage). The hyphenation pattern is consistent.
Tool Count5/5
8 tools cover the core operations for Chrome Web Store item management without being overwhelming. The count is well-scoped for the server's purpose.
Completeness3/5
The set covers publishing workflow well, but misses important operations: creating new items (must use dashboard), listing items, and deleting. These gaps could hinder agents needing full lifecycle management.
Average 3.8/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 1 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on March 19, 2026
- 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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update' which implies mutation, but does not mention authentication requirements, idempotency, side effects, error handling, or rate limits. Given the lack of annotations, this is a significant gap for a tool that modifies data.
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 composed of two concise sentences. The first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose and scope. The second sentence provides critical deprecation notice and an alternative. No extraneous information is included; every sentence serves a clear 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?
Given the lack of annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, and param context, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., mutation implications, permissions) and does not explain return values or error conditions. For a tool with 9 parameters and complex raw metadata, it is moderately complete but leaves 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 9 parameters. The description adds value by explaining that metadata is a 'raw metadata object forwarded as-is' and that itemId defaults to an environment variable. This provides context beyond the schema, but does not significantly enhance understanding of the individual parameters. Baseline 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?
Clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'store listing metadata of a Chrome Web Store item' using the v1.1 API. Mentions support for common fields and raw metadata, distinguishing it from the alternative tool update-metadata-ui which is a newer version. However, it does not fully differentiate the two tools' use cases beyond the deprecation notice.
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?
Explicitly notes that the v1 API is deprecated and will be removed by Oct 15, 2026, and directs users to use update-metadata-ui as an alternative. This provides clear when-not-to-use guidance. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus the UI alternative (e.g., for programmatic access or raw metadata payloads) beyond the deprecation 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions support for immediate/staged publish, deploy percentage, and skip-review, which adds some transparency. However, it does not disclose potential irreversible effects (e.g., overriding a live version) or error scenarios.
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 succinct sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key features. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words.
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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description could provide more context about prerequisites (e.g., item must be uploaded first), return values, or typical error conditions. It covers core features but lacks completeness for a complex publish workflow.
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 parameter descriptions. The description only summarizes the capabilities (immediate, staged, etc.) without adding new semantic depth beyond what the schema already provides. 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Publish' and the resource 'extension to Chrome Web Store', making the action specific. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like 'upload' and 'cancel', as publishing is a distinct final step.
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 that publishing is performed after an upload, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., upload first). No alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat vague.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly implies a read operation by using 'Fetch', but lacks details on safety, idempotency, authentication, or rate limits. The returned fields are listed, which is helpful but not comprehensive behaviorally.
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: one sentence stating purpose and a list of return fields. It is front-loaded with the action. Minor improvement could be structuring the return fields more clearly, but overall efficient.
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 no output schema, the description lists six key return fields, which is sufficient for an agent to anticipate the response. The tool has simple optional params; the description covers what the agent needs to know.
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 description coverage is 100% because both parameters have descriptions mentioning environment variable defaults. The tool description adds no additional parameter info, so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance meaning beyond the schema.
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 'Fetch' and the resource 'extension on Chrome Web Store', clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'deploy-percentage' (specific deploy info) and 'get' (generic) by listing the comprehensive set of returned data.
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 an overall status is needed, but no explicit guidance on when to use alternatives like 'deploy-percentage' or 'get'. No 'when not to use' or comparisons, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'update an existing draft' but omits details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, effect on previous draft, or return value.
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?
Two concise sentences: the action is front-loaded, and the note adds essential context without excess.
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 description covers purpose and a key limitation, but lacks details on expected behavior (e.g., output, size limits, overwrite semantics) given the absence of an 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 described). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.
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 'Upload a ZIP file to update an existing Chrome Web Store item draft', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get' or 'publish' by specifying the action is for draft updates.
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 includes a note explicitly stating that creating new items is not supported via API and directs to the Developer Dashboard, providing a clear when-not-to-use. However, it does not contrast with sibling tools like 'update-metadata'.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the action (cancel a pending submission) but does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, or post-cancellation state. This is adequate but lacks depth.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. Every word is necessary and front-loaded with the core verb and resource. Very efficient.
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?
For a simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but omits prerequisites (e.g., item must be pending), return value, or what happens after cancellation. Adequate 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 verb 'Cancel' and the resource 'pending submission on Chrome Web Store'. It specifies the tool targets items in review, distinguishing it from sibling tools like publish, upload, or get.
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 context for when to use the tool ('to cancel an item currently in review'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, the context is clear enough against sibling 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important constraints (incremental percentage, user count requirement) but omits behavioral details such as success/failure responses or whether the change triggers a publish. The description is moderately transparent but lacks depth.
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 concise: two sentences, no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and follows with necessary constraints. Every sentence adds value.
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 with full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core action and constraints but lacks information about return values, error conditions, or post-effect behavior. For a simple mutation tool, it is adequate but not 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description repeats the constraint from the schema ('Must be larger than the current target percentage'). It adds the default behavior for itemId and publisherId, but overall does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema with 3 parameters.
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 action: 'Set the published deploy percentage for staged rollout on Chrome Web Store.' It uses a specific verb ('Set') and identifies the resource ('deploy percentage'), differentiating it from siblings like 'cancel' or 'publish'.
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 conditions: the new percentage must be higher than the current target, and the tool is only available for items with 10,000+ seven-day active users. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly identifies the operation as read-only and mentions API version and deprecation. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements or potential errors, which are minor omissions for a simple getter.
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?
Two sentences efficiently convey purpose, returned fields, and deprecation. No extraneous information. Perfectly front-loaded and concise.
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's simplicity, the description adequately covers returned fields and API version. Minor gaps exist regarding error handling and ownership requirements, but overall it is sufficiently 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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters (itemId, projection) including defaults. The description adds no new semantic information beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.
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 it retrieves metadata of a Chrome Web Store item, specifying the API version and listing returned fields like title, description, and category. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update-metadata' or 'publish'.
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 usage for reading metadata, and the deprecation note warns about API removal. It does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a simple getter.
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, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'UI automation (Playwright)', hinting at browser interaction, but does not disclose potential slowness, environment requirements, or that by default the browser is visible (headless defaults to false). Could be more transparent.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance. Every sentence is meaningful and concise.
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?
Covers primary use and differentiates from sibling but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., login requirements, browser environment) or return values. Given 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is slightly brief but adequate for the core functionality.
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 description coverage is 100% (all 10 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how parameters are used together or any constraints not in the schema.
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 'Update listing metadata via Chrome Web Store dashboard UI automation (Playwright)'. It specifies the verb (update), resource (listing metadata), and method (UI automation), distinguishing it from the API-based sibling 'update-metadata'.
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?
Explicitly says to use this tool 'when API metadata updates are not reflected, or as the primary metadata update method since the v1 API is deprecated'. Provides clear context but lacks explicit alternatives or when not to use.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![cws-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mikusnuz/cws-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mikusnuz/cws-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![cws-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mikusnuz/cws-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mikusnuz/cws-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/mikusnuz/cws-mcp'

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