adobe-firefly-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: generate images, generate videos, expand, remove background, create variations, and several debug/diagnostic tools that are all different in function. No two tools are ambiguous.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools start with 'firefly_' prefix, which is consistent. However, naming patterns mix verb_noun (firefly_generate, firefly_validate_environment) and noun_noun (firefly_debug_bundle) or noun (firefly_status). Minor inconsistency but still readable.
Tool Count5/5
10 tools is well-scoped for an image generation service. It covers generation, editing, and diagnostics without being overwhelming or too sparse. Each tool earns its place.
Completeness4/5
Core features like generate, video, expand, background removal, and variations are present. Missing features like inpainting or style transfer are gaps, but the set covers the most common workflows. Diagnostics are a bonus.
Average 3.7/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 27 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 19, 2026
- 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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'use Adobe Firefly's browser UI' and 'save the result' but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the original file is modified, if network calls are made, or if the browser stays open). Minimal behavioral info.
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?
Extremely concise—only one sentence. Front-loaded with action and resource. However, it could benefit from a slight structure break (e.g., separate outcome) but not necessary for this 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?
The tool has 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description omits what happens to the output (where it's saved, format), error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., Firefly UI availability). Incomplete for a task with moderate complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no additional 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool removes background from a local image and saves the result, which distinguishes it from generation or variation tools. However, mentioning 'browser UI' is slightly ambiguous—does it mean headless automation or user-facing? Still, the verb and resource are specific.
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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like firefly_generate or firefly_variations. No alternatives or exclusions mentioned. The description implies a generic use case without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It implies a read-only diagnostic operation by listing checks (authentication, browser health, etc.) and a readiness score, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, permissions, or potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose; every sentence provides essential information without redundancy or fluff.
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 description adequately covers the tool's function and output for a simple validation tool with no parameters. However, given the similar sibling 'firefly_verify_environment', more distinguishing context would improve completeness.
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 coverage is 100%. The description adds value by detailing what aspects of the environment are validated (authentication, selectors, etc.), which goes beyond the empty 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 ('Validate') and the resource ('Adobe Firefly environment readiness'), and lists specific checks. However, the presence of a sibling tool 'firefly_verify_environment' with a similar name creates ambiguity; the description does not distinguish between validate and verify.
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 'firefly_verify_environment' or other siblings. No exclusions or context for appropriate use are mentioned.
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 fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the sign-in requirement but omits critical details such as potential side effects, error behavior, rate limits, or what happens to the browser session. This lack of transparency leaves significant gaps for an agent.
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: two sentences that immediately convey the core action and a critical prerequisite. Every word serves a purpose, and the most important information is front-loaded. No redundancy or fluff.
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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, how to effectively use optional parameters, or any post-invocation behavior. For a complex image generation tool, this is insufficient, leaving the agent without essential operational 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?
The input schema already provides complete descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage). The tool description does not add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema already conveys, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not excel.
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 'Generate' and the resource 'images in Adobe Firefly', and it uniquely identifies the tool among siblings by distinguishing it from video generation or background removal. It also specifies the context of a persistent browser session, making the purpose unmistakable.
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 explicitly notes the prerequisite of manual Adobe sign-in and the use of an existing persistent browser session, providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not offer exclusion criteria or alternatives (e.g., comparing with firefly_generate_video), so it falls short of a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the dependency on a browser session and manual sign-in, but does not cover failure modes, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. This adds some transparency but leaves 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 consists of two front-loaded sentences with no superfluous words. Every sentence adds essential information about the tool's purpose and prerequisite.
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?
With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify the return value (e.g., file path or URL) and explain parameter dependencies (e.g., model support for duration). It fails to address these, leaving the tool's behavior incomplete for an 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?
All 9 parameters are fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is adequate. Baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'generate' and resource 'videos in Adobe Firefly', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'firefly_generate' (likely images) and 'firefly_remove_background'. It also mentions the browser session requirement, adding specificity.
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 specifies the prerequisite of a persistent browser session with manual Adobe sign-in, guiding when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but sibling tool names provide sufficient context for differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden and delivers: 'This is a read-only tool that never navigates, clicks, or modifies the page.' This is a model of behavioral transparency, clearly stating safety guarantees. Additional context about inspecting shadow DOM and discovering selectors adds value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no filler. The most critical information (purpose, read-only guarantee) is front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a clear purpose and behavioral guarantee but lacks guidance on parameter interplay (e.g., which mode for which use case) and what the return value looks like. The description covers essential context but is incomplete for fully informed tool selection.
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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. It mentions some use cases (shadow DOM, selectors) that hint at parameter choices but does not elaborate on mode selection or other options.
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 'inspect', the resource 'Adobe Firefly DOM state', and the purpose 'for debugging'. It explicitly distinguishes itself as a read-only diagnostic tool, differentiating from sibling tools like firefly_dom_watch (likely for monitoring changes) and firefly_debug_bundle (a broader debug collection).
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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use it to diagnose broken automation, discover selectors, and inspect shadow DOM.' This provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternatives like firefly_dom_watch, leaving some ambiguity for agents deciding between tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and 'without navigating or clicking', which communicates safety and lack of side effects. It also details reuse of BrowserManager, BrowserContext, and Page, providing transparency about internal dependencies.
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 sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is concise, front-loaded with the key action ('Read-only verification'), and avoids extraneous detail. Every part of the sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description is clear about behavior, it lacks information about what the verification checks or what the output or result looks like. Since there is no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return value or success criteria. The current description feels slightly incomplete for an agent needing to interpret results.
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, and the schema coverage is perfect (100% of 0 parameters). The description does not need to add parameter information. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate given that there are no parameters to document.
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 'Read-only verification of the current live Firefly page', specifying the verb (verify) and resource (live Firefly page). It also clarifies that it reuses browser objects without navigation or clicks, effectively distinguishing itself from potentially similar tools like firefly_validate_environment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a safe, side-effect-free operation ('without navigating or clicking'), which helps in understanding when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like firefly_validate_environment or provide conditions for when one should be preferred over the other.
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:

[![adobe-firefly-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/peroxide-dev/adobe-firefly-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/peroxide-dev/adobe-firefly-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![adobe-firefly-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/peroxide-dev/adobe-firefly-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/peroxide-dev/adobe-firefly-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/peroxide-dev/adobe-firefly-mcp'

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