Skip to main content
Glama
qpd-v

MCP Word Counter

by qpd-v
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The tool 'analyze_text' has a single, clearly defined purpose of counting words and characters, so an agent cannot misselect between non-existent alternatives.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    A single tool inherently has perfect naming consistency, as there are no other tools to compare it against. The name 'analyze_text' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, which would be consistent if more tools were added.

    Tool Count2/5

    The server 'MCP Word Counter' has only one tool, which feels thin for its apparent scope of text analysis. While word and character counting is a specific task, a typical text analysis server might include additional tools (e.g., for sentiment, readability, or language detection) to provide more comprehensive functionality.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for a text analysis domain. It only covers basic word and character counting, with obvious gaps such as sentence counting, paragraph analysis, frequency analysis, or other common text metrics. This limited surface will likely cause agent failures when more advanced text processing is needed.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 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 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.

  • 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 mentions counting words and characters but does not describe how the tool behaves, such as whether it reads files safely, handles errors, or returns specific formats. For a tool with 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.

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to 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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or return values, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool correctly. For a tool with such minimal structured data, the description should provide more 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 has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'filePath' clearly documented. The description does not add any additional meaning or details about parameters beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as 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 function as 'Count words and characters in a text document,' which specifies the verb (count) and resources (words, characters). It distinguishes the tool's purpose well, though without sibling tools, differentiation isn't needed. It's not a tautology and is specific enough for understanding.

    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, prerequisites, or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without context for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on the purpose alone. This lack of explicit guidelines reduces its helpfulness.

    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

mcp-wordcounter MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-wordcounter 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/qpd-v/mcp-wordcounter'

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