Skip to main content
Glama
posecode-dev

posecode

Official
by posecode-dev
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

83%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.3

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The guide and validator serve completely distinct purposes: one provides language documentation, the other checks syntax and constraints. No functional overlap.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tools use snake_case, but one follows a noun_verb_noun pattern ('posecode_authoring_guide') while the other uses verb_noun ('validate_posecode'), showing minor inconsistency.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels minimal. However, for a niche DSL server solely focused on authoring and validation, it is borderline acceptable.

    Completeness2/5

    The server lacks tools for creating, editing, or converting Posecode documents. An agent cannot progress beyond reading the guide and validating pre-existing files.

  • Average 4.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 171 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.

  • 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.

  • This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.

  • 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.

  • View related servers

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 of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns errors and ROM clamps, and notes the limitation regarding clinical safety. However, it does not discuss side effects, idempotency, or error handling, leaving gaps 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.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description consists of two concise sentences that clearly communicate the tool's function and usage. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance. No unnecessary words are present.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness5/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides adequate context: it explains the input, output (errors and ROM clamps), and appropriate use case. The caution about clinical safety adds important context. No additional information is needed for agent understanding.

    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 fully describes the single parameter 'source' with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Thus, the description adds no extra value for parameter understanding.

    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 that the tool parses a .posecode document and returns errors and ROM clamps. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying its use case: to check source before showing to a user, implying it is for validation rather than authoring or rendering.

    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 instructs when to use the tool: 'Use this to check the source before showing it to a user'. It also provides a critical caution that 'a clean result is not a clinical safety assessment'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior4/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    No annotations provided, but description transparently states validation and permalink generation. Missing details on potential errors or permissions, but no indication of hidden behavior.

    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 short sentences: first describes function, second provides user instruction. No superfluous words.

    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?

    Adequately covers purpose and output for a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. Could mention error conditions or output format (URL) but not necessary.

    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%, and parameter description in schema matches description text. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema.

    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?

    Clearly states it validates a .posecode document and returns a permalink for 3D animation, effectively distinguishing from sibling tools like validate_posecode which only validates.

    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?

    Implicitly indicates usage for creating shareable animations by telling to give link to user, but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like validate_posecode or posecode_authoring_guide.

    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 provided; description covers basic behavior (returning a guide) but does not explicitly state that it's a read-only, non-destructive operation, though this is obvious from context.

    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 and front-loaded sentences with no superfluous information. Each sentence adds value: purpose and usage guidance.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness5/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. No missing information.

    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?

    No parameters in schema; description correctly avoids parameter details. Baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tool.

    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 'Return the guide that teaches the Posecode language' with specific content details (grammar, joints, actions, example), and distinguishes from sibling tools (render_posecode, validate_posecode) by being about authoring.

    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?

    Includes 'Read this before writing a movement' which provides clear context on when to use the tool. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives but implicitly prioritizes usage before sibling tools.

    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

posecode MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

posecode 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/posecode-dev/posecode'

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