Skip to main content
Glama
rocnubie

aidance-mcp

by rocnubie
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool serves a completely distinct informational purpose: styles, pricing, and official links. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: list_styles, get_pricing, get_official_links. The convention is uniform and predictable.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 3 tools, the set is minimal but perfectly scoped for the domain of providing reference information about a service. Each tool covers a distinct, essential facet, and no unnecessary tools bloat the server.

    Completeness5/5

    For the apparent purpose of exposing canonical reference data about AI Dance, the surface is complete. There are no obvious missing operations, as the tools cover styles, pricing, and official links comprehensively.

  • Average 3.5/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • No commit activity data available
    • 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

  • Behavior1/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the operation ('return') but doesn't disclose what the response contains, what format it takes, or any side effects. For a zero-parameter tool, the behavior is likely a constant, but the description leaves this implicit.

    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 concise sentence with no wasted words, but it lacks necessary specificity. Structurally, it's front-loaded with the verb and resource, but the ambiguity of 'entry point' reduces the value.

    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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete because it doesn't clarify what the 'canonical pricing entry point' is, nor how this differs from the pricing info that might be in list_styles or get_official_links. It leaves the return value ambiguous.

    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 covers everything. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

    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 identifies the tool as returning a 'canonical pricing entry point', which distinguishes it from pricing-related siblings, but 'entry point' is ambiguous—it could mean a URL, document ID, or other reference. A more specific resource (e.g., 'pricing URL' or 'pricing record') would improve clarity.

    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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_styles or get_official_links. It doesn't mention any use cases, prerequisites, or 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 the transparency burden. It discloses a 'when available' caveat for docs, but does not explain output format, rate limits, or authentication. This is minimal but not misleading.

    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, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler.

    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?

    Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify the return structure. 'Canonical list' is vague about whether the output is a flat array of URLs or structured objects. The description is functional but leaves some ambiguity.

    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 there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema. The baseline score of 4 for a parameterless tool is appropriate.

    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 tool returns the canonical list of official links for AI Dance, listing specific resource types (website, support, docs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools list_styles and get_pricing.

    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?

    No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The purpose implies it is for retrieving official links, but it does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria.

    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 clearly implies a read-only operation by saying 'Return', but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as caching, rate limits, or whether the list is dynamically generated. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not rich.

    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 is concise and front-loaded. It includes a clarifying note '(AI Dance)' which adds context without extra fluff. Every word earns its place.

    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 has no parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward purpose, the description is fully complete. It states exactly what will be returned and the scope. There is no missing information for an agent to invoke this correctly.

    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 is empty, which means schema description coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds no parameter details because there are none, and baseline for zero parameters is 4. No additional semantic burden is needed.

    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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('canonical list of image-generation styles or presets the site exposes'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pricing and get_official_links. It is unambiguous about the tool's function.

    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: it returns styles/presets for image generation. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, the context is strong enough given the sibling names. No exclusions are stated, but the use case is obvious.

    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

aidance-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

aidance-mcp 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/rocnubie/aidance-mcp'

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