Skip to main content
Glama
rocnubie

Flux-2 Online MCP

by rocnubie
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

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 targets a distinct aspect: styles, pricing, and official links. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: list_styles, get_pricing, get_official_links. No mixing of conventions.

    Tool Count4/5

    Three tools is slightly on the low side but reasonable for a focused informational server. Each tool serves a clear purpose.

    Completeness3/5

    The server lacks tools for core actions like image generation or detailed style information, leaving notable gaps if the domain includes those features.

  • Average 3.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 3/5.

    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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic purpose. No information about side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or output format is 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, clear sentence with no extraneous words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's core function.

    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?

    Despite being a simple tool with no parameters, the description lacks details about the output format or how the returned pricing entry point should be interpreted. It is adequately clear but not fully complete.

    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 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description's mention of returning a 'canonical pricing entry point' adds meaningful context beyond the empty schema, earning a baseline of 4.

    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 'Return' and the specific resource 'canonical pricing entry point for Flux-2 Online', but the exact nature of the return value (e.g., a URL, a document, a price list) is slightly ambiguous.

    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 siblings like list_styles or get_official_links. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

    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 full burden. It describes the return value but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or disclose any side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits. The behavior is simple and mostly transparent.

    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 of 17 words, front-loading the key verb and resource. Every word earns its place with no wasted text.

    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?

    Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and returns. It could mention that the list is canonical and up-to-date, but it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to 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?

    The tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not add parameter semantics because there are none, but it also does not explain that no parameters are needed, which is fine. Baseline 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 'return', the resource 'canonical list of official links for Flux-2 Online', and specifies the types of links (website, support, docs). It distinguishes from siblings list_styles and get_pricing, which serve different purposes.

    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 when to use the tool (when official links are needed) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. The context with sibling tools provides indirect differentiation.

    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 must carry the full burden. It states that the tool returns a list, but does not disclose potential caching, data freshness, or any limitations. The behavior is simple enough, but more context would be helpful.

    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, consisting of a single clear sentence with an additional parenthetical for context (Flux-2 Online). No unnecessary words; every sentence earns its place.

    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?

    Given that there are no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly states what the tool returns and the model context. However, it could mention how the styles might be used in image generation for further clarity.

    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 input schema has no properties (0 parameters), and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter information, but none is needed since there are no parameters.

    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 it returns 'the canonical list of image-generation styles or presets,' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pricing and get_official_links, which have different purposes.

    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?

    There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, the description lacks information about prerequisites or context for use, leaving the agent to infer usage.

    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

flux-2-online-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

flux-2-online-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/flux-2-online-mcp'

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