sketchup-mcp

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.17
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (selection, CRUD, materials, export). The three joint creation tools are similar in structure and verb, differing only by joint type, which could be ambiguous for agents unfamiliar with woodworking terminology.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case, such as create_component, delete_component, export_scene. Even eval_ruby is verb_noun, and joint tools consistently use create_<joint_type>, making the naming highly predictable.
Tool Count5/5
10 tools is within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool serves a distinct purpose, and the three joint tools represent specific sub-types rather than redundant operations. eval_ruby provides a general escape hatch, so no tool feels unnecessary.
Completeness4/5
The set covers core component lifecycle (create, delete, transform, set material), selection, scene export, and specialized joints. Missing a direct get_component or list_components operation is a minor gap, but get_selection and eval_ruby can bridge it, so most workflows are supported.
Average 2.9/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 2.1/5.
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
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

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Create', which implies mutation but does not explain whether components are modified in place, what happens on failure, or any side effects. There is no mention of expected outputs beyond what may be in the output schema, and no safety or error context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise in length but severely under-specified for a tool with 10 parameters. Conciseness should not come at the expense of necessary detail; this is under-description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, output schema present but not described), the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain parameter semantics, usage context, or behavioral implications, leaving the agent with almost no actionable guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 10 parameters. The schema provides names, types, and defaults, but no semantic meaning (e.g., how angle affects the joint, what offset components). The description fails to bridge this gap.
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 'Create a dovetail joint between two components' clearly states the verb (create) and the resource (dovetail joint), and specifies the two required inputs (components). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_mortise_tenon or create_finger_joint beyond the joint type in the name.
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?
No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tool names imply alternative joint types, the description does not explicitly state when create_dovetail is preferred, nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints.
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 provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'create' without explaining side effects, output, or impact on the existing model. This is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It earns its place by stating the core purpose, but the brevity comes at the cost of missing critical information.
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?
Given the tool has three parameters, no annotations, and one short sentence, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter semantics, when to use, or behavioral outcomes, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (type, position, dimensions). The agent gets no additional meaning beyond the bare schema property names and defaults.
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 states a clear verb ('create') and resource ('a new component in Sketchup'), which distinguishes it from joint-specific creation tools like create_mortise_tenon. However, it lacks specificity about what kind of component or any scope details, making it slightly less informative than the high-caliber example.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. The description simply states the action without any context, so the agent receives no decision-support information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Create' without explaining whether the tool modifies existing components, requires prerequisites, or has any side effects. There is no additional context beyond the action itself.
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 is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with this complexity; conciseness should not sacrifice necessary information. It earns a middle score for being brief but incomplete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 9 parameters, an output schema, and sibling alternatives, yet the description provides almost no context about how to invoke it correctly. It lacks any mention of parameter meanings, defaults, units, coordinate systems, or relationships between components. This is far from sufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 for the 9 parameters. It only mentions 'two components' which loosely maps to board1_id and board2_id, but it adds no meaning for the many other parameters like depth, width, offset, or num_fingers. The description is entirely inadequate in this dimension.
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 a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('finger joint (box joint) between two components'), which unambiguously identifies the tool's function. It also distinguishes itself from sibling joinery tools (create_mortise_tenon, create_dovetail) by naming the joint type.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_mortise_tenon or create_dovetail. The description implies usage through the joint type name, but there is no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative suggestions.
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a mutation, but the description does not explain whether this modifies existing components, creates new geometry, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. There is no information about what happens to the two components or what the resulting joint looks like.
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 a single, clear sentence with no fluff. It efficiently communicates the core action and target. While it is brief, it is not under-specified to the point of being useless; it conveys the tool's purpose in a focused way.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is still incomplete. It does not explain the role of each parameter, any default behaviors, or how the two components are connected. Users cannot determine what settings to provide or what output to expect from this description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, leaving the description to compensate for the 8 parameters. The description does not mention depth, width, height, offsets, or the mortise_id/tenon_id identifiers. It only says 'between two components,' which vaguely hints at component references but provides no semantic meaning for the parameters.
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 creates a mortise and tenon joint between two components, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_dovetail or create_finger_joint beyond the joint type name, so it misses the opportunity to distinguish which joint type is appropriate.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_dovetail or create_finger_joint. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., components must exist) or contexts where a mortise and tenon joint is preferred. The description simply states what the tool does without any usage direction.
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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether the material is overwritten, whether the component must exist, or what the output represents. The verb 'Set' implies mutation, but no additional behavior is disclosed.
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 is a single sentence with no superfluous content, which is structurally concise. However, it is under-specified to the point of being minimally informative, making the brevity a drawback rather than a strength.
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?
For a simple tool with only two parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens on success, failure modes, or any side effects. While the tool is simple, the complete lack of context leaves significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. It does not explain what 'id' refers to (presumably the component ID) or what format 'material' expects (name, path, color, etc.). The parameters are completely unexplained beyond the schema's minimal property definitions.
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 'Set' and the resource 'material for a component', which precisely defines the tool's action. It is distinct from sibling tools like create_component or delete_component, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The description simply states the operation without context, leaving the agent to infer usage.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It simply states 'Delete' without indicating whether the action is permanent, affects dependencies, or what occurs if the ID does not exist, leaving important side effects undisclosed.
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 very short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose, though it could include more behavioral context without being verbose.
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 delete-by-ID operation, the description is minimally adequate. However, given no annotations and a lack of usage or side-effect details, it does not fully prepare an agent for the tool's consequences, especially since it is a destructive mutation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('id') with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds only 'by ID', which merely restates the parameter name rather than explaining its format, scope, or required values. It does not meaningfully compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 states a clear verb ('Delete') and resource ('a component') with an identifier ('by ID'). This specifically distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_component, transform_component, and set_material, leaving no ambiguity about the operation.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other component-related actions. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or examples, which would help an agent decide when deletion is appropriate.
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?
The description carries the full burden since no annotations are provided, but it only states the action without disclosing side effects like file writing, required permissions, or behavior nuances. No mention of what happens to the exported file or whether it affects the scene.
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 clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
While an output schema exists, the description omits critical context such as where the export goes, what file formats are supported, and any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'format' is not mentioned in the description, and the schema only provides a default value ('skp') without explaining valid options or semantics. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 a specific verb ('export') and resource ('current scene'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools dealing with selection, components, and joinery. It is unambiguous and action-oriented.
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?
No explicit usage guidance is provided, but the tool's purpose is self-evident and no sibling tool overlaps with exporting. Implied usage is sufficient for this simple tool.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It merely states 'transform' without revealing whether values are absolute/relative, units, coordinate system, or effects on existing component state, leaving 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence front-loaded with the action verb, containing no extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for the sparse information it conveys.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential operational context such as behavior when optional parameters are omitted, coordinate system, or whether the component must exist. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is insufficient for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has no descriptions (0% coverage) and the description only repeats parameter names without defining array formats (e.g., [x,y,z]), units, or constraints. It fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 uses specific verb 'transform' and identifies resource 'component' with three specific attributes (position, rotation, scale), clearly distinguishing from sibling operations like create_component or set_material.
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?
Implies usage by naming the exact properties to modify, but offers no explicit context on when to use vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of related tools.
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'get', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, whether it can return an empty selection, or if any permissions are needed. The minimal description leaves these behavioral aspects undisclosed.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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 tool's simplicity—no parameters and an output schema that presumably describes the return value—the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain what 'selected' means, how selection is determined, or when to use this tool in a broader workflow, leaving some context gaps.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description does not need to add parameter meanings, and the baseline score for no parameters is 4.
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 a specific verb 'get' and a specific resource 'currently selected components', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that create, delete, or modify components. The scope is clear and unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of how it fits into a workflow with sibling tools like transform_component or set_material. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Evaluate arbitrary Ruby code' without mentioning side effects (e.g., modifying the Sketchup model), potential safety risks, error behavior, or return value structure. For a high-powered eval tool, this is a significant gap.
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 that front-loads the essential information. It contains no filler or redundancy.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain how the tool integrates with Sketchup, what the return value represents, or any warnings about arbitrary code execution. Given the tool's complexity and high risk, the one-line description is inadequate for an agent to use it safely and 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 one 'code' parameter with zero description coverage, but the tool description clarifies that it is the Ruby code to evaluate. This adds basic meaning, but it does not specify expected code format (expression vs statement), multi-line support, or whether a return value is expected. Minimal compensation for the schema gap.
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 a specific verb ('Evaluate') and resource ('arbitrary Ruby code in Sketchup'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform specific operations like create_component or set_material. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.
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 phrase 'arbitrary Ruby code' implies it is a catch-all for custom operations not covered by dedicated tools, but it does not explicitly state this or name alternatives. There is clear context but no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![sketchup-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nguyenduyhust/sketchup-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nguyenduyhust/sketchup-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/nguyenduyhust/sketchup-mcp'

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