MCP Gemini API Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tools have some clear distinctions but also notable overlap. analyze_directory and analyze_files both perform analysis with a prompt, differing only in input scope (directory vs. multiple files), which could cause confusion. raw_prompt is similar but lacks file context. The config tools and verify_feature are distinct, but the analysis tools blur together.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with clear verb_noun structures (e.g., analyze_directory, get_config). All tools adhere to this convention, making them readable and predictable. Minor deviation in raw_prompt (which uses 'raw' as an adjective) is acceptable.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the count is well-scoped for a Gemini API server. It covers core analysis operations, configuration management, and a verification feature without being overwhelming. Each tool appears to serve a specific purpose, fitting a typical utility server scope.
Completeness3/5
The toolset covers basic analysis and configuration but has gaps. It lacks operations for managing analysis results (e.g., list or delete analyses) and doesn't support advanced Gemini features like model selection or streaming. The verify_feature tool is useful but doesn't fully round out the domain, leaving some workflows incomplete.
Average 2.7/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
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
- 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 ISC 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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Set configuration value' implies a write/mutation operation but provides no information about permissions required, whether changes are persistent or reversible, potential side effects, error conditions, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral transparency.
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 at just three words: 'Set configuration value'. While this represents under-specification in terms of content, from a pure conciseness perspective it's maximally efficient with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place in conveying the core function.
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 configuration mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after setting the configuration, whether the change is immediate or requires restart, what format the value should be in, or what systems are affected. Given the complexity of configuration management and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more context about the operation's scope and effects.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters ('key' and 'value') clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set configuration value' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'set_config' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't distinguish what kind of configuration, for what system, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'get_config'. While it includes a verb ('Set') and resource ('configuration value'), it lacks the specificity needed for clear differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling 'get_config' tool for retrieving configuration values, nor does it indicate any prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for setting configuration. There's no explicit or implied guidance about when this operation should be performed.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'verify' but doesn't explain what this entails—whether it performs static analysis, runtime checks, or something else. Critical behavioral aspects like potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or output format are omitted. The description is too brief to provide meaningful behavioral context for a tool with multiple parameters.
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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficient, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as by hinting at the verification method. Overall, it's well-structured but minimalistic.
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?
Given the tool's complexity with 4 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, how verification is performed, or any behavioral traits. For a tool that likely involves code analysis or checking, more context is needed to understand its operation and results. The description is too sparse to be fully helpful without relying heavily on the 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional semantic information about parameters beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain how parameters like featureQuestion or paths relate to the verification process. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the schema's documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as verifying feature implementation in a codebase, which is clear but somewhat vague. It specifies 'verify' as the verb and 'feature' as the resource, but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like analyze_directory or analyze_files, which might have overlapping functionality. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what 'verify' entails compared to analysis 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like analyze_directory or analyze_files, nor does it specify contexts or prerequisites for usage. Without any usage instructions, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate based on the name alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.
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 provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on errors. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like (e.g., string, object, error handling) or provide context for the configuration system. For a tool with 1 parameter and minimal structured data, it should do more to compensate.
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 schema already documents the 'key' parameter fully. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid keys or format constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get configuration value' states the basic action (get) and resource (configuration value), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'set_config'. It's not tautological but lacks specificity about what kind of configuration or system is involved.
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 like 'set_config' or other siblings. The description implies retrieval but doesn't specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool uses 'Gemini CLI' but doesn't explain what this entails—such as potential side effects, error handling, or output format. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the complexity of 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, output expectations, and differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate 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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for any gaps.
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 ('analyze a directory') and the method ('using Gemini CLI'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'analyze_files' or 'raw_prompt', which would be needed for a score of 5.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_files' or 'raw_prompt'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions using 'Gemini CLI' but doesn't explain what that entails—such as whether it's an external API call, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens during analysis (e.g., file reading, processing time). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and mechanism, making it easy to grasp quickly.
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?
Given the complexity of analyzing files with an external CLI, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover critical aspects like expected output format, error handling, or behavioral traits (e.g., whether files are modified), leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'paths' should be formatted or what 'analyze' entails for the 'prompt'. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 ('analyze multiple files') and the mechanism ('using Gemini CLI'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'analyze_directory', which likely analyzes directories instead of individual files, leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_directory' or 'raw_prompt'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as file accessibility or Gemini CLI setup, and doesn't mention any exclusions or specific use cases.
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 states the tool executes a prompt via Gemini CLI but lacks critical behavioral details: what happens on timeout, how maxOutputKB truncates output, error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations and potential execution risks, this is insufficient disclosure.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. 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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that executes external commands (implying potential side effects), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover return values, error conditions, or safety considerations. For a tool with this complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
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 schema already documents all three parameters (prompt, maxOutputKB, timeout) with their types and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., prompt format examples or timeout implications). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Execute') and the resource ('a raw prompt'), specifying it's done 'without file context using Gemini CLI'. This distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_files or analyze_directory that involve file operations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., get_config/set_config).
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?
The description provides minimal guidance: it mentions 'without file context', implying this tool is for text-only prompts. However, it doesn't specify when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., for simple queries vs. complex analyses), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. No explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references are 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

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-gemini MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/techkwon/mcp-gemini/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/techkwon/mcp-gemini)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-gemini MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/techkwon/mcp-gemini/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/techkwon/mcp-gemini)

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/techkwon/mcp-gemini'

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