MCP-Typebot

by osdeibi

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific resources and actions in the Typebot domain. For example, createBot, getBot, updateBot, and deleteBot handle the bot lifecycle, while publishBot/unpublishBot manage publication status, and startChat/listResults cover interaction aspects. No tools appear to overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with camelCase styling (e.g., createBot, listBots, updateBot). The verbs are descriptive and aligned with CRUD operations (create, get, update, delete, list) or specific actions (publish, unpublish, start), making the set predictable and readable.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, this server is well-scoped for managing Typebots, covering core operations like bot lifecycle (create, read, update, delete), listing, publishing, and interaction features (start chat, list results). Each tool earns its place without redundancy or obvious gaps in the domain.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface provides complete coverage for the Typebot management domain, including full CRUD operations for bots (createBot, getBot, updateBot, deleteBot), listing (listBots), publication control (publishBot, unpublishBot), and interaction capabilities (startChat, listResults). There are no apparent gaps that would hinder agent workflows.
Average 2.8/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Lista') without detailing behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior (implied by 'cursor' and 'limit' parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, efficient sentence in Spanish ('Lista resultados de un Typebot'), which is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could benefit from slightly more detail given the tool's complexity.
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 (5 parameters, 1 required), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context for the agent to understand how to use the tool effectively, what the parameters mean, or what to expect in return. The description should do more to compensate for these gaps in structured data.
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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters (botId, cursor, limit, timeFilter, timeZone) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. It doesn't explain what 'botId' refers to, how 'cursor' works for pagination, the purpose of 'timeFilter' and 'timeZone', or the context for 'limit'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Lista resultados de un Typebot' clearly states the verb ('Lista') and resource ('resultados de un Typebot'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'resultados' specifically means (e.g., chat session outcomes, analytics data) and doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools that might also list data, like 'listBots' which lists bots rather than results.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a botId), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'getBot' or 'startChat'. This leaves the agent with minimal 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if unpublishing is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects data, or has side effects (e.g., breaking links). This leaves significant gaps 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Spanish ('Despublica un Typebot existente'), which translates to 'Unpublishes an existing Typebot.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words.
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 as a mutation operation with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, return values, or usage context, making it insufficient for safe and effective agent invocation.
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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage and only documents botId as a required string. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description fails to explain what botId represents or its format, lowering the score due to incomplete compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('despublica' meaning 'unpublishes') and resource ('un Typebot existente'), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'unpublishing' entails compared to siblings like deleteBot or publishBot, and doesn't specify if this affects visibility, accessibility, or versioning.
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 deleteBot (permanent removal) or updateBot (modification). The description implies it operates on existing Typebots, but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions for 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 the full burden. It states it lists all Typebots, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if workspaceId is omitted (since it's not required). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 in Spanish that directly states the tool's action without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and usage context, making it inadequate for a tool in this complex environment. A simple list operation needs more guidance to be fully actionable.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't add any parameter semantics. It mentions 'de un workspace' which relates to the workspaceId parameter, but doesn't explain its format, source, or implications. With one undocumented parameter and no compensation in the description, this falls short of the baseline.
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 verb ('Lista todos los') and resource ('Typebots de un workspace'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getBot' (which might retrieve a single bot) or 'listResults' (which lists results rather than bots), missing full sibling differentiation.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a workspaceId), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'getBot' for single bots or 'listResults' for different data. Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly defined.
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 states this is an update operation but doesn't describe what happens when overwrite=true/false, whether changes are reversible, what permissions are required, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 extremely concise - a single sentence in Spanish that directly states the purpose with a helpful example. Every word earns its place with no wasted text, though it could benefit from being more comprehensive.
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 mutation tool with 3 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the update behavior, parameter meanings, return values, or how this tool fits within the broader Typebot management workflow with its 7 sibling tools.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage for all 3 parameters, the description provides minimal help. It mentions changing the name as an example, which hints at the 'typebot' parameter's purpose, but doesn't explain botId (required identifier) or overwrite (boolean flag). The description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
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 ('Actualiza' - updates) and resource ('un Typebot existente'), providing a specific example of changing the name. It distinguishes from createBot by specifying 'existente' (existing), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other sibling tools like publishBot or unpublishBot.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing bot), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like publishBot/unpublishBot for workflow sequencing.
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 this is a deletion operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't disclose whether deletion is permanent/irreversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects associated data, or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 extremely concise - a single Spanish sentence that directly states the tool's function. There's zero wasted verbiage and it's front-loaded with the core action.
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 destructive deletion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like permanence, side effects, error conditions, or return values that an agent would need to use this tool safely and effectively.
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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It specifies that the parameter is a bot ID, which the schema already indicates through the property name 'botId'. With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, the baseline would be 4, but the description doesn't compensate with format details, validation rules, or examples.
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 ('Elimina' - deletes) and the resource ('un Typebot por su ID'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'unpublishBot', which might also involve removing or disabling a bot in some way.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'unpublishBot' and 'deleteBot' existing, the description doesn't clarify whether deletion is permanent versus unpublishing, or what prerequisites might be needed before deletion.
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 but offers minimal behavioral context. It states it retrieves by ID but doesn't disclose error handling (e.g., if botId is invalid), authentication needs, rate limits, or what the return format looks like. 'Recupera' implies a read operation, but no further details are given.
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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. No extraneous information or redundancy is present.
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 (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on error cases, return values, or integration with siblings (e.g., how botId relates to listBots). For a retrieval tool, more context on what 'recupera' entails would be helpful.
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 description mentions 'por su ID' (by its ID), which aligns with the single parameter botId in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no param details. The description adds basic semantics (ID-based retrieval) but doesn't explain botId format, constraints, or examples, leaving 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 verb ('Recupera' meaning 'Retrieves') and resource ('un Typebot'), specifying it's a retrieval operation by ID. It distinguishes from siblings like listBots (which lists multiple) and createBot/updateBot (which modify). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what a 'Typebot' is, which slightly reduces specificity.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid botId), when to choose getBot over listBots for single retrieval, or any exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.
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 full burden. 'Publica' implies a mutation (likely not read-only), but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether publishing is reversible, rate limits, or what happens post-publish. It lacks critical context 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Spanish. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. It meets conciseness standards perfectly.
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 complexity (mutation tool), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'publish' does operationally, return values, or error conditions. It should provide more context for 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't add any parameter details beyond the schema's botId. No format, source, or constraints are explained. Baseline is 3 because the single parameter is straightforward, but the description doesn't enhance understanding.
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 'Publica un Typebot existente' clearly states the action (publish) and resource (an existing Typebot). It distinguishes from siblings like createBot (creates new) and unpublishBot (reverses this action). However, it doesn't specify what 'publish' entails operationally, keeping it from a perfect score.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., bot must exist, be unpublished), or contrast with siblings like updateBot or startChat. Usage is implied but not explicitly 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool initiates a chat, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't describe what happens after initiation (e.g., returns a chat ID, starts a session, requires authentication, or has rate limits). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.
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 that front-loads the core purpose and includes essential parameter information. There is no wasted text, and it effectively communicates the necessary details in a compact form, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 (2 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool returns (e.g., a chat object or session ID), error conditions, authentication needs, or how it integrates with sibling tools like listResults. This makes it inadequate for fully understanding the tool's use in context.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by specifying that botId is required and chat.context is optional, which clarifies parameter roles beyond the schema's structural definition. However, it doesn't explain what botId represents (e.g., a bot identifier string) or what chat.context contains (e.g., initial conversation data), leaving semantics partially unclear.
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 ('Inicia un chat') and resource ('con un Typebot'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like createBot or getBot by focusing on chat initiation rather than bot management. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential chat-related siblings that might not exist in the current list.
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 mentions that botId is required and chat.context is optional, which provides basic parameter guidance. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether this is for starting new chats versus continuing existing ones, or how it relates to other bot operations like publishBot or listResults.
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 states that the tool creates a new Typebot, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover permissions needed, whether the creation is idempotent, error conditions, or what the response includes. This leaves significant gaps 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and parameter requirements. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it efficient for quick understanding.
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 complexity of a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, return values, and doesn't fully cover all parameters, making it insufficient for reliable agent use.
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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema by specifying that 'name' is required and 'description' is optional, which clarifies parameter roles despite 0% schema description coverage. However, it doesn't mention 'workspaceId', leaving one parameter undocumented, slightly reducing effectiveness.
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 ('Crea un nuevo Typebot') and resource ('Typebot'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'updateBot' or 'deleteBot' by specifying creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'publishBot' which might involve creation aspects.
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 'updateBot' for modifications or 'listBots' for viewing. The description mentions required and optional parameters but doesn't specify contextual usage scenarios or prerequisites.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/osdeibi/MCP-typebot'

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