Gemini CLI MCP Server

by orzcls

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tools have distinct primary purposes (e.g., ask-gemini for model queries, brainstorm for idea generation, fetch-chunk for data retrieval), but some overlap exists in communication functions: Help provides general assistance while ping serves as a connectivity test, which could be confused for basic diagnostic purposes. The descriptions clarify their differences, but the boundaries between support tools are not perfectly sharp.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming conventions are inconsistent across the set: ask-gemini and fetch-chunk use kebab-case with descriptive verbs, brainstorm is a single word, Help uses PascalCase, ping is lowercase, and timeout-test mixes kebab-case with a hyphen. There is no uniform pattern in verb usage or casing, making the tool names appear chaotic and unpredictable.
Tool Count4/5
With 6 tools, the count is reasonable for a CLI server focused on Gemini interactions and utility functions. It covers core operations like querying, idea generation, and testing without being overly bloated, though it might feel slightly thin if expanded to more advanced Gemini features. The scope aligns well with the provided tools.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers basic interactions with Gemini (ask-gemini, brainstorm) and includes utility functions (fetch-chunk, Help, ping, timeout-test), but there are notable gaps for a comprehensive CLI server: missing operations for managing conversations, handling errors, or configuring settings. It supports core workflows but lacks full lifecycle coverage, which could limit agent effectiveness in complex scenarios.
Average 2.7/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 2/5.
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 is failing
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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. 'Echo' implies a simple return operation but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it has side effects, what authentication might be needed, or any rate limits. The description fails to provide any behavioral context beyond the minimal implication of the word 'echo'.
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 single word 'Echo' is extremely concise but borders on under-specification rather than effective brevity. While it uses minimal words, it fails to provide meaningful information that would help an AI agent understand and use the tool effectively.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description 'Echo' is insufficiently complete. While the tool appears simple with only one optional parameter, the description doesn't explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or provide any context about its purpose within the server alongside tools like 'ask-gemini' and 'fetch-chunk'.
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?
With 0 required parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is high. The single optional parameter 'prompt' is fully documented in the schema with type, default value, and description. The tool description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since the schema already provides complete coverage for this simple tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Echo' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'ping' without clarifying what the tool actually does. While 'echo' suggests returning input, it doesn't specify what resource or operation is involved, nor does it distinguish this from sibling tools like 'ask-gemini' or 'fetch-chunk'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools like 'ask-gemini' for AI responses or 'fetch-chunk' for data retrieval.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'sandbox mode' for safe testing and 'changeMode' for structured edits, which adds some context about safety and output formatting. However, it lacks critical details like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the tool returns (no output schema exists). The description is insufficient for a tool with 7 parameters and complex functionality.
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 poorly structured—it reads like a fragmented parameter reference rather than a coherent tool description. It's not front-loaded with purpose, and the phrase 'providing edits' is tacked on ambiguously. While brief, it fails to communicate effectively, making it inefficient rather than concise.
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 (7 parameters, AI interaction, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is highly incomplete. It doesn't explain the core functionality, return values, error conditions, or practical usage scenarios. The schema handles parameter documentation, but the description adds little contextual value, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
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 input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description lists three parameters ('model selection [-m], sandbox [-s], and changeMode:boolean') but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain interactions between parameters or usage nuances). This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is essentially a parameter list ('model selection [-m], sandbox [-s], and changeMode:boolean') rather than stating what the tool does. It mentions 'providing edits' at the end, which hints at functionality but doesn't clearly articulate the core purpose. The description fails to specify that this tool queries or interacts with a Gemini AI model.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'brainstorm' or 'fetch-chunk' is provided. The description mentions 'providing edits' which might imply use cases involving code or text modifications, but it doesn't clarify context, prerequisites, or distinctions from sibling 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal insight. 'receive help information' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify what kind of help (e.g., general guidance, error messages, usage tips), how it's delivered, or any constraints like rate limits. It lacks crucial context for safe and effective use.
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 extremely concise with just two words, which is appropriate for a simple tool. However, it's arguably under-specified rather than efficiently informative, as it doesn't convey enough meaning to be truly helpful. It earns a 4 for brevity but loses a point for lacking substance.
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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'help information' entails, how it might be structured, or when it's useful compared to other tools. For even a basic tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its role and output.
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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter documentation in the description. The baseline for this scenario is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't waste space on non-existent parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'receive help information' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'Help' without specifying what kind of help is provided or what resource it accesses. It doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'ask-gemini' or 'brainstorm' that might also provide assistance. The purpose remains vague rather than specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 alternatives like 'ask-gemini' or 'brainstorm'. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent with no information to make an informed choice among sibling 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'dynamic context gathering,' 'feasibility analysis,' and 'iterative refinement,' which hint at process complexity, but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, expected runtime, rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 fragment followed by a list, which is moderately efficient but lacks clear structure. The list ('Creative frameworks...') is dense and could be better organized. While it avoids redundancy, it doesn't front-load the most critical information, and some phrases like 'dynamic context gathering' are vague without elaboration, reducing overall clarity.
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 (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It omits essential context: what the output looks like (e.g., list of ideas, structured analysis), how 'iterative refinement' works in practice, error conditions, or performance expectations. For a brainstorming tool with multiple parameters and no structured output, more guidance is needed to ensure effective use.
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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema—it mentions 'creative frameworks' and 'domain context integration,' which loosely map to the 'methodology' and 'domain' parameters but don't provide additional syntax or usage insights. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating for gaps.
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 novel ideas with dynamic context gathering.' It specifies the verb ('generate') and resource ('novel ideas'), and mentions key capabilities like creative frameworks and analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ask-gemini' which might also generate ideas, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific brainstorming tool.
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 alternatives. It lists capabilities like 'creative frameworks' and 'domain context integration' but doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over sibling tools (e.g., 'ask-gemini' for general queries). There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or comparative use cases, leaving the agent with minimal contextual 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'runs for a specified duration' to test timeout prevention, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's safe (non-destructive), what happens after the duration (e.g., returns a result or error), or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with potential timing implications.
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, efficient sentence: 'Test timeout prevention by running for a specified duration.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero waste, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, timing data), potential errors, or behavioral details like whether it's idempotent. For a tool that interacts with system timeouts, more context is needed for safe and effective use.
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%, with the parameter 'duration' fully documented in the schema as 'Duration in milliseconds (minimum 10ms).' The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the duration controls runtime, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
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: 'Test timeout prevention by running for a specified duration.' It includes a specific verb ('test') and resource ('timeout prevention'), but doesn't differentiate from siblings (e.g., 'ping' which might also test system responsiveness). The purpose is unambiguous but lacks sibling comparison.
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 like 'ping' or other siblings. The description implies usage for testing timeouts but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that this retrieves 'cached chunks' and is for 'subsequent chunks,' implying it's a read operation without side effects, but lacks details on error handling, caching behavior, or response format. This is adequate but has gaps.
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 two sentences with zero waste, front-loading the purpose and following with usage guidance. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for basic understanding but lacks details on output (e.g., what the chunks contain) and error cases. It's minimally viable but could be more comprehensive.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('cacheKey' and 'chunkIndex') fully. The description adds minimal value by referencing 'cache key provided in the initial changeMode response' and 'which chunk to retrieve,' but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema.
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 action ('Retrieves cached chunks') and resource ('from a changeMode response'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (like 'ask-gemini' or 'brainstorm'), which would require 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?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool ('after receiving a partial changeMode response'), which helps guide usage. It doesn't specify when not to use it or name explicit alternatives among siblings, preventing a score of 5.
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

gemini-mcp-tool-windows-fixed MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

[![gemini-mcp-tool-windows-fixed MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/orzcls/gemini-mcp-tool-windows-fixed/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/orzcls/gemini-mcp-tool-windows-fixed)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![gemini-mcp-tool-windows-fixed MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/orzcls/gemini-mcp-tool-windows-fixed/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/orzcls/gemini-mcp-tool-windows-fixed)

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/orzcls/gemini-mcp-tool-windows-fixed'

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