Skip to main content
Glama
ntanhprt

pshare-share-mcp

by ntanhprt
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    With only a single tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap. The tool's purpose is clearly unique by virtue of being the only one.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    A single tool name cannot be inconsistent with itself. 'pshare_upload' uses a clear prefix plus verb structure, and there are no other names to compare against.

    Tool Count2/5

    A one-tool server for a file-sharing service feels too thin. While the tool covers the upload action, the apparent scope of 'share' implies at least download or retrieval functionality, making a single tool insufficient.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is severely limited to uploading. There are no tools for downloading, listing, deleting, or managing shares, which means agents have no way to complete a full sharing workflow.

  • Average 4/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • No commit activity data available
    • 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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the upload side-effect and the nature of the return value, but it does not disclose potential caveats such as file size limits, authentication requirements, or whether an existing share is reused or a new one is created. The UI-equivalence note adds value, but behavioral disclosure remains basic.

    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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and outcome. Every phrase earns its place, and there is zero filler or repetition of schema field names.

    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?

    The tool has no output schema, so the description's mention of the returned share link is valuable for understanding what to expect. With six parameters well-documented in the schema and a straightforward purpose, the description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool, though it could add edge-case behavior (e.g., handling of inaccessible paths).

    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%, so the description rightfully leaves parameter details to the schema. The only parameter-related hint in the description is 'one or more files/folders', which mirrors the 'paths' array. This adds no meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 names a specific verb ('Uploads'), a clear resource ('one or more files/folders from this machine to Pshare'), and a concrete outcome ('returns the same share link a user would get'). It fully distinguishes the tool's purpose even without sibling tools.

    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 clear usage context by equating the tool's output to the UI 'Share' action, implying when to use it: whenever a user would upload files via the Pshare interface. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but with no sibling tools, this is sufficient.

    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

Pshare-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

Pshare-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/ntanhprt/Pshare-mcp'

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