Skip to main content
Glama
tkoba1974

MCP Kroki Server

by tkoba1974
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one downloads diagrams to local files for offline use, while the other generates URLs for web-based display. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (download_diagram, generate_diagram_url) with the same base noun 'diagram', making them predictable and easy to understand.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for a diagram generation service. It lacks essential operations like listing supported diagram formats, validating diagram code, or managing diagram styles, which would be expected for a complete toolset.

    Completeness2/5

    The server covers basic output generation (download and URL) but has significant gaps. It lacks tools for input validation, format discovery, or diagram manipulation (e.g., editing or converting formats), which are core to a diagram service domain.

  • Average 4/5 across 2 of 2 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 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

  • 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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes the core functionality (converting diagram code to image file) and mentions the scale option's limitation to SVG format, but lacks details about error handling, performance characteristics, or authentication requirements.

    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 efficiently structured with three sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the core functionality, explaining use cases, and noting a specific feature. There is no redundant or 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?

    For a tool with 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks details about return values, error conditions, or performance characteristics that would be helpful for an agent.

    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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions the scale option's effect on SVG output, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns.

    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 purpose with specific verbs ('download', 'converts', 'saves') and resources ('diagram image', 'local file'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'generate_diagram_url' by emphasizing local file saving rather than URL generation.

    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 for when to use this tool ('useful for generating diagrams for presentations, documentation, or other offline use'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention the sibling tool as an alternative for different use cases.

    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 that the tool generates URLs (not files) and mentions the external service Kroki.io, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't cover behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether the URL is persistent/temporary. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist).

    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 appropriately sized (three sentences) and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains inputs/outputs, and the third describes usage. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.

    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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, inputs, outputs, and usage context. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., URL characteristics, error cases). The 100% schema coverage helps 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 all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'Mermaid diagram code or other supported diagram formats' which aligns with the 'type' and 'content' parameters, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

    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 purpose: 'Generate a URL for a diagram using Kroki.io' with specific verbs ('generate', 'takes', 'returns') and resources ('Mermaid diagram code or other supported diagram formats', 'URL to the rendered diagram'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'download_diagram' by focusing on URL generation rather than downloading.

    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 for when to use this tool: for generating URLs to display diagrams in web browsers or embed in documents. It implies an alternative (the sibling 'download_diagram' likely downloads the diagram file), but doesn't explicitly state when to choose one over the other or list exclusions.

    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

mcp-kroki MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-kroki 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/tkoba1974/mcp-kroki'

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