Skip to main content
Glama
rocnubie

meigenai-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 resource: styles, pricing, or official links. There is no ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Tools use a verb_noun pattern, but mix 'list_' and 'get_' verbs. While both are clear, consistency would be improved by using a single verb.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 3 tools, the server seems under-scoped for an image generation platform, but it may be intentionally focused on reference information.

    Completeness2/5

    The server lacks any tools for actual image generation, user management, or creation workflows, which are core to its stated domain.

  • Average 3.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It simply states 'Return' without detailing behavior (e.g., data source, caching, side effects). The agent lacks insight into whether this is a simple fetch, requires authentication, or has latency implications.

    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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action verb 'Return', providing immediate clarity. Every word 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?

    For a tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it could add context about the return format or entry point structure to help the agent anticipate the response. As is, it leaves some uncertainty.

    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 schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter information because none are needed. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets this adequately.

    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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the canonical pricing entry point for Meigen AI'. It effectively distinguishes the tool from its siblings (list_styles, get_official_links) which focus on different aspects.

    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 alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or cases where another tool might be preferred. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

    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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'when available' for docs, hinting at conditional availability, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or response behavior. For a simple read tool, more context (e.g., that links are static) would help.

    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, front-loaded sentence of 17 words with no fluff. Every word adds value, specifying the return type and examples.

    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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and examples. However, it could specify the format or that the list is static, which 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, and baseline 4 is appropriate as per rules. The description does not need to add parameter info since the schema is empty and coverage is 100%.

    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 a 'canonical list of official links' for Meigen AI, with examples (website, support, docs). It uses specific verb 'Return' and resource 'canonical list', distinguishing 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?

    The description implies usage when official links are needed, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, though siblings have distinct purposes, so confusion is minimal.

    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 burden. It states the tool returns a list, implying a read operation. However, it does not explicitly say it is read-only or disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, idempotency).

    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?

    Single sentence, front-loaded with the key information. Every word is necessary and concise.

    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 no output schema and zero params, the description is minimal. It says 'canonical list' but does not specify the format or structure of the returned list. For a simple tool, it is adequate but lacks some detail about what the list contains.

    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?

    There are 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but with no parameters, the baseline is 4. No further documentation 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 clearly states the tool returns a 'canonical list of image-generation styles or presets'. It specifies the resource (styles) and action (return list). Given siblings are get_pricing and get_official_links, this tool is distinct.

    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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Implied usage: if you need styles, use this. Siblings have different purposes, but no exclusions or context provided.

    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

meigenai-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

meigenai-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/meigenai-mcp'

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