Skip to main content
Glama
rocnubie

Soora FR MCP Server

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 category of information—styles, pricing, and official links—with clear names and descriptions. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case, using either 'list' or 'get' appropriately. This is a coherent and predictable convention.

    Tool Count5/5

    With only three tools, each serves a specific informational purpose and the set feels appropriately scoped for a lightweight reference server. The count sits within the ideal range and does not feel overly thin or redundant.

    Completeness4/5

    The server covers the key information areas an agent might need—styles, pricing, and official links—but may lack additional details like per-style specifics or usage policies. Minor gaps exist but core workflows are supported.

  • Average 4.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 3.4/5.

    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

  • 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 only states that it returns an entry point, without describing the output format, side effects, or any access requirements, leaving significant ambiguity.

    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 immediately conveys the core purpose. It is appropriately concise with no unnecessary information.

    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?

    Although this is a simple tool with no parameters or output schema, the description does not define what 'pricing entry point' means in terms of the actual return value. This leaves the agent without enough context to fully anticipate the tool's output.

    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 baseline score of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain any parameter semantics.

    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 action ('Return') and resource ('canonical pricing entry point'), and the mention of 'Soora FR' differentiates it from sibling tools like list_styles and get_official_links. However, 'entry point' is a bit ambiguous, so it does not achieve a perfect score.

    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 its siblings. The name and description imply it is for pricing-related queries, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the usage context is only implied.

    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 full burden. It discloses the canonical nature of links and the conditional 'when available', but doesn't address potential edge cases like empty results or errors. This is adequate for a simple read-only tool.

    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 verb 'Return', and includes necessary qualifiers without waste.

    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 (no params, no output schema), the description adequately explains what it returns and the available categories. It is complete for its intended purpose.

    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?

    Tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers this aspect. Baseline 4 for no params; description adds nothing 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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource as 'canonical list of official links for Soora FR' with details on website, support, docs. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 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 Guidelines4/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description provides clear context that this tool is for retrieving official links. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the purpose is unambiguous and there are no exclusions needed given the distinct siblings.

    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 are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the list is 'canonical' and that it represents what the 'site exposes', conveying its authoritative scope. Being a read-only retrieval operation with no side effects, the description provides sufficient transparency without needing to mention auth or rate limits.

    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, well-formed sentence that gets straight to the point. The parenthetical '(Soora FR)' adds minimal context without bloating the text. No unnecessary words or repetition.

    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?

    For a simple, parameterless, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool returns (canonical list of styles/presets) and is sufficient for selection. The low complexity means no additional context is needed.

    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, which earns a baseline of 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because there are none to explain. The schema already reflects the absence of parameters, so the description need not compensate further.

    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's function: returning a canonical list of image-generation styles/presets. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('list of image-generation styles or presets'), and the sibling tools (pricing, official links) are obviously distinct. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

    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 implies the usage context: when you need the authoritative list of styles or presets for image generation. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions, but since there are no overlapping sibling tools, the absence of alternatives is clear. For a simple list-retrieval tool, this is adequate.

    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

soorafr-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

soorafr-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/soorafr-mcp'

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