Siril MCP Server

by taco-ops

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct action: checking version, finding binary, validating binary, processing mosaic, preprocessing with GUI, downloading scripts, and checking project structure. Even the three binary-related tools are easily told apart by their different verbs and purposes.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, with verbs like check, find, validate, process, preprocess, download, and check. There is no mixing of styles or vague naming.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped and each tool serves a clear purpose within the Siril/Seestar workflow. It is neither too sparse nor overloaded.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the core lifecycle for Seestar image processing: ensuring the environment is correct, downloading needed scripts, checking project structure, and running the two main processing workflows. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to fix project structure issues), but agents can work around them.
Average 3.9/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 25, 2025
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
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, the description carries the full burden. It mentions prerequisites and headless mode but does not disclose potential side effects, failures, or what the GUI launch entails (e.g., blocking, interactive behavior, error handling). Significant behavioral gaps remain.
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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no redundant information. The parenthetical prerequisite is appropriately placed. Every word earns its place.
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 tool description is minimal and does not explain how it fits into the preprocessing pipeline, what the GUI performs, or what the user should expect. Although an output schema exists, the description lacks sufficient behavioral and integration context to be fully self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the 'project_dir' parameter at all. The parameter name gives a hint, but the description fails to explain its role in launching the GUI. No compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 action ('Launches') and target resource ('full Naztronomy-Smart_Telescope_PP.py GUI') with a specific mode ('headless'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like process_seestar_mosaic or check_siril_version.
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?
Usage is implied: this tool is for launching the GUI headlessly. It lists a prerequisite but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or comparison to alternative tools. The prerequisite gives some context but lacks exclusions.
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 bears the full burden of disclosing side effects. It does not mention whether existing files are overwritten, whether network access is required, or what happens on failure. The description only states the happy path without behavioral caveats.
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 two concise sentences with no filler. It gets straight to the point and is well-structured, placing the primary action first.
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 one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and destination. However, it omits important operational context like whether the script files will overwrite existing ones, if a directory must already exist, or if there are network prerequisites. Given the lack of annotations, some additional context would improve completeness.
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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter project_dir with a clear description. The tool description only reinforces 'project directory' without adding new semantic details, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 ('downloads'), the resource ('latest SSF script files from the naztronaut/siril-scripts repository'), and the destination ('saves them to your project directory'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_siril_version or process_seestar_mosaic.
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 phrase 'This ensures you have the most up-to-date versions' implies use when fresh scripts are needed, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The use case is only indirectly suggested.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. 'Checks and displays' implies a read-only operation, and it specifies output theme (present/missing files), but doesn't disclose error handling, side effects, or behavior beyond these traits.
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 action, zero redundant words. All content is relevant and directly tied to tool's function.
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?
Tool has a single parameter, no annotations, but has an output schema. Description clearly defines purpose and scope, but could specify what constitutes a valid project structure or what 'missing' is compared against. Minor gap given simplicity and existing schema.
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?
Input schema already documents the sole parameter (project_dir) with 100% coverage. Description adds no extra detail about parameter format or meaning beyond what schema provides, warranting baseline 3.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Checks and displays' with resource 'structure of a Seestar project directory', clearly stating it shows present and missing files. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle version checks, binary validation, and processing.
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 alternative guidance. Usage is implied as a diagnostic step for Seestar projects, but there is no statement about when to choose this over sibling tools like validate_siril_binary or process_seestar_mosaic.
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?
With no annotations, the description discloses that it executes a command on the local machine and returns the version string, which is transparent for a read-only operation. It does not mention failure modes if siril is missing, but the core behavior is clear.
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 with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys both the action and the result.
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 zero-parameter tool that runs one command and returns a string, the description fully covers the essential behavior. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to explain return format.
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 takes zero parameters, so the schema fully covers the input. The description adds no parameter detail, but the baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless tool.
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 action: runs 'siril --version' and returns the version string. This distinguishes it from siblings like find_siril_binary (locating the binary) and validate_siril_binary (verifying functionality).
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 given on when to use this tool versus find_siril_binary or validate_siril_binary. The description only states what the tool does, with no mention of prerequisites (e.g., siril must be installed) or alternatives.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's purpose (testing whether a binary path works) but leaves 'works correctly' undefined—does it run the binary, check version, or verify permissions? It also doesn't state side effects or failure behavior. However, as a validation tool, the core behavior is reasonably clear, earning a mid-range score.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds a practical use case. 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?
The tool is simple with one parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema present. The description explains what the tool does and when to use it; no additional context is needed for a tool of this complexity.
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 schema describes the only parameter 'binary_path' with 'Full path to the Siril binary to test,' providing 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline of 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 tool 'Tests whether a specific Siril binary path works correctly,' which is a specific verb ('Tests') and resource ('Siril binary path'). It distinguishes from siblings like check_siril_version (version check) and find_siril_binary (locating a binary) by focusing on validation of a given path.
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 usage context: 'Useful for validating custom installations or non-standard locations.' This implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is sufficient to guide the agent.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key side effect (automatically creating required SSF script files in the project directory) and clarifies the processing scope. It doesn't mention external dependencies like Siril being installed or whether files might be overwritten, but the core behavioral traits are well described.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action, input, and output; the second removes a likely user concern (manually downloading scripts). The information is front-loaded and every clause adds value.
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?
The description covers the essential context: input directory, processing action, output concept, and a major convenience. An output schema exists, so return details don't need explaining. However, given sibling tools like find_siril_binary and validate_siril_binary, the description could have mentioned prerequisites or ordering, so it's not fully complete.
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 reinforces that project_dir must contain a 'lights/' subdir, matching the schema. It does not add further meaning to filter_type beyond what the schema already provides via its enum and per-value descriptions, so no higher score is warranted.
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 ('Runs'), a clear resource ('the appropriate Siril .ssf mosaic script on all FIT(S) in project_dir/lights'), and states the outcome ('stacking them into a mosaic'). It also differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly noting that it auto-creates the SSF scripts, so users don't need to download them separately.
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 gives clear context: it processes all FIT(S) in project_dir/lights and auto-creates script files. It implicitly advises against a separate manual download step, which distinguishes it from the sibling download_latest_ssf_scripts. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention prerequisites like running check_project_structure first.
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 states the core action (locating) and the return value (path), but does not disclose edge cases such as what happens if the binary is not found, whether it searches the PATH, or any side effects. This is adequate but lacks depth.
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 two sentences and front-loaded with the action. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.
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 parameters, output schema present) and the description's clear statement of purpose and return value, the description is complete. The output schema handles return details, so the description does not need to explain them.
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 is 4. The description correctly implies that no input is needed and that the operation is system-wide. No further parameter semantics are required.
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 'Locates' and the resource 'Siril binary', and specifies that it 'returns its path'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_siril_version and validate_siril_binary, which focus on version checking and validation, respectively.
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 by stating it is 'useful for troubleshooting installation issues or confirming which version of Siril will be used'. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![siril-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/taco-ops/siril-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/taco-ops/siril-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![siril-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/taco-ops/siril-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/taco-ops/siril-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/taco-ops/siril-mcp'

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