Skip to main content
Glama
stackJx

modao-prototype-mcp

by stackJx
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct operation: immediate export, server-side download export, and updating existing images. There is no functional overlap between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent verb_modao_noun pattern (export_modao_prototype, export_modao_prototype_download, update_modao_export_images), with clear verb prefixes.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools is appropriate for the specialized domain of prototype export and image updates. The count is neither too few nor excessive.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool set covers the core workflow: initial export (two modes for flexibility) and subsequent image updates. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.

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

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 1 commit 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

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • 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, the description should disclose behavior beyond basic function. It does not mention potential side effects (e.g., network usage, browser automation), timeout behavior, or what happens on failure. The headless parameter is hinted but not explained.

    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 sentence with no redundancy. However, it is in Chinese which may limit understanding for English-speaking agents. Still, it is concise and front-loaded.

    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?

    The description is too minimal for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain the output files (manifest.json, catalog.md, etc.) nor error handling. The complexity warrants more detail.

    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?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—only reiterating the overall purpose. It does not clarify parameter interactions or provide examples.

    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 (export) and resource (Modao prototype link), and specifies the output (page directory and PNG screenshots). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like export_modao_prototype_download or update_modao_export_images.

    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, or prerequisites. The description lacks explicit context for appropriate usage, which is needed given the presence of sibling tools.

    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?

    With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions updating PNGs in place, but does not clarify whether updates are destructive, how errors (e.g., missing manifest) are handled, or what the 'force' and 'mode' parameters actually do in practice. The description covers the basic action but omits important behavioral traits.

    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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose. While it could benefit from more structure (e.g., bullet points for clarity), it avoids wasted words.

    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?

    For a tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain preconditions (e.g., valid manifest.json), return values, or how parameters like 'headless' affect behavior. The agent lacks sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly in diverse scenarios.

    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?

    All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the overall action.

    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 reads a manifest.json and updates PNG images in an existing Modao export directory. The verb-resource pairing is specific, and the tool name implies an update action, distinguishing it from sibling export tools.

    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 alternatives (e.g., re-running export tools). The description implies it is for updating already-pulled images, but explicit context on prerequisites or exclusions is missing.

    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 discloses that results are saved on the server and download links are returned, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, destructive potential, or other behavioral nuances. For a read-like export tool, this is minimal but adequate.

    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 that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids verbosity, though it could be more structured for 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?

    With 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, parameter interactions, or how the download links work, leaving the agent underinformed.

    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?

    Schema coverage is 100%, so the input schema already describes each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond stating the core function, meeting the baseline without enhancement.

    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 exports Modao prototypes in a remote-friendly manner, with server-side saving and download link returns. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools 'export_modao_prototype' and 'update_modao_export_images'.

    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?

    There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for remote-friendly server-side export, but lacks when-not or exclusion criteria.

    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

modao-prototype-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

modao-prototype-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/stackJx/modao-prototype-mcp'

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