Transloadit MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v4.1.17
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are mostly distinct, but 'wait_for_assembly' and 'get_assembly_status' overlap in purpose; descriptions clarify that one polls and the other is a one-time fetch, so ambiguity is low.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the consistent 'transloadit_verb_noun' pattern (e.g., create_assembly, list_robots), making predictions easy.
Tool Count5/5
7 tools cover the core Transloadit API interactions well, including creation, status, polling, listing, linting, and help. No superfluous or missing essential operations.
Completeness4/5
The set covers creation, monitoring, listing, and help. Minor gaps include no ability to update or delete assemblies, but the core workflow is complete.
Average 2.9/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 20 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 28, 2026
- 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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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 must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions creating/resuming and waiting, but omits critical details: authentication requirements, error behavior, side effects, or what happens on resume. This leaves the agent guessing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks any structure (e.g., no sections, no parameter guidance). It is neither verbose nor well-organized, but brevity alone does not make it valuable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, nested objects, output schema), the description is extremely sparse. It does not explain the output, error handling, or what 'resume' entails. This is inadequate for an agent to use effectively.
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%, yet the description explains none of the 10 parameters. The only hint is 'optionally uploading files' loosely relating to the 'files' parameter. This is entirely insufficient for effective invocation.
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 ('create or resume') and resource ('Assembly'). It also mentions optional file uploading and waiting, which gives a good overview. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'transloadit_get_assembly_status' or 'transloadit_lint_assembly_instructions'.
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 lacks explicit context like prerequisites, scenarios, or when not to use it. The mention of 'optionally uploading files' is a hint but insufficient.
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 full burden. It only states 'returns a robot summary and parameter details,' which is nearly tautological. No mention of read/write nature, side effects, or output format beyond what is implied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it lacks structure like separating purpose from details. It could be more informative without being lengthy.
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 has three parameters, an enum, and an output schema, the description fails to provide sufficient context for correct invocation. No guidance on required vs optional parameters or when to use detail_level. Incomplete for an agent.
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%, but the description adds no information about the three parameters: robot_name, robot_names, or detail_level. It does not explain relationships or usage, leaving the agent without needed context.
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 function: returning a robot summary and parameter details. It implies distinction from sibling tool 'transloadit_list_robots' which lists robots, but does not explicitly differentiate. Overall, purpose is clear.
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 like transloadit_list_robots. No context about prerequisites or typical 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?
The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or rate limits. With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but fails to address these aspects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but underspecified. It lacks important details, making it inefficient for practical use despite being front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters with no descriptions, no annotations, and the output schema is not provided, the description is far from complete for a list operation with filtering and pagination.
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 explain the purpose or expected values of the four parameters (category, search, limit, cursor). The agent has no guidance on how to use them.
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 ('returns a filtered list') and the resource ('robots with short summaries'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like transloadit_create_assembly and transloadit_get_robot_help, which have different purposes.
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 vs alternatives. The description does not specify when it is appropriate to use list_robots over other tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'polls until complete or timeout', omitting details like blocking behavior, timeout error, or polling mechanism. This is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise but overly brief. It front-loads the action but lacks necessary detail, making it minimally adequate.
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?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description does not mention return values, behavior on timeout, or how parameters affect polling. This is insufficient for a complex tool with 4 parameters.
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%, so the description must compensate. It provides no explanation of any of the four parameters (assembly_url, assembly_id, timeout_ms, poll_interval_ms), leaving their meaning and usage entirely to the schema.
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 polls until assembly completion or timeout. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like transloadit_get_assembly_status (one-time check) and transloadit_create_assembly (creation).
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. For example, it doesn't mention that transloadit_get_assembly_status should be used for a single status check without blocking.
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 should disclose behaviors like pagination, rate limits, or error handling, but it only mentions listing owned and builtin templates without further behavioral context.
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 very short and gets to the point quickly, but it could be more structured to include key information without excessive length.
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?
Despite having an output schema and 7 parameters, the description lacks explanation of pagination, sorting, filtering, and other critical details, making it incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, leaving all 7 parameters undocumented. The description only briefly explains the 'include_builtin' parameter via a tip, failing to add meaning for other parameters like 'page', 'sort', or 'keywords'.
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 'List' and the resource 'Assembly Templates (owned and/or builtin)', distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with assemblies, robots, or waiting.
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 description provides a specific tip for filtering built-in templates but does not give broader guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as transloadit_lint_assembly_instructions or transloadit_list_robots.
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, and the description only says 'fetch' without detailing behavioral traits like idempotency, authentication requirements, or error behavior. The description is too minimal to compensate for the lack of annotations.
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 concise sentence that directly answers what the tool does. No unnecessary words, perfectly sized for a simple fetch operation.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks information about error scenarios or relationship to sibling tools, which would help in a broader context.
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 description adds the context that the parameters are for identifying the assembly by 'URL or ID', which is not present in the schema (which only has string types). However, it does not specify format, precedence, or exclusivity, so it provides minimal additional meaning.
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 it fetches the latest Assembly status, which is a specific verb-resource combination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like transloadit_create_assembly (creation) and transloadit_wait_for_assembly (waiting).
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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It only mentions the parameters (URL or ID) but no contextual instructions, such as preferring this over transloadit_wait_for_assembly for a one-time check.
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 the tool returns 'structured issues,' indicating a validation outcome. However, it does not mention any side effects, auth requirements, or specific error conditions. The presence of an output schema (not shown) reduces the need for return format details, but the description could be more explicit about 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 two concise sentences that front-load the key purpose and outcome. Every word is meaningful, and there is 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?
For a tool with three parameters and no annotation, the description is incomplete. It explains the general purpose and result, but lacks parameter documentation and any behavioral details beyond the basic function. The output schema helps, but the tool's full context is not covered.
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 provides no explanation for any of the three parameters: 'instructions,' 'strict,' or 'return_fixed.' Without parameter descriptions, the agent cannot understand their meaning or how to use them correctly.
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: 'Lint Assembly Instructions without creating an Assembly. Returns structured issues.' It uses a specific verb ('Lint') and resource ('Assembly Instructions'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'transloadit_create_assembly' by highlighting that no assembly is created.
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 explicitly says 'without creating an Assembly,' which differentiates it from the main sibling tool. It implies the tool is for validation before creation, but does not provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tools beyond the contrast with create_assembly.
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:

[![node-sdk MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/transloadit/node-sdk/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/transloadit/node-sdk)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![node-sdk MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/transloadit/node-sdk/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/transloadit/node-sdk)

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/transloadit/node-sdk'

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