exisjs-mcp

by v25group

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: two for documentation (list vs read) and four for generating different file types (route, gateway, plugin, config). Overlap is minimal and easily resolved by the noun in each tool name.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'exis_<verb>_<noun>' using snake_case and the 'exis' prefix. Verbs are clear and the pattern is predictable across all six tools.
Tool Count5/5
With six tools, the set is well-scoped for an ExisJS-specific MCP server covering documentation and common scaffolding tasks. The count feels appropriate and not overwhelming.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers documentation access and generation of core project files, which is solid. Minor gaps might include additional generator types (e.g., models or controllers), but for the stated purpose it is fairly complete.
Average 3.6/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 16, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
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 must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Scaffolds' implies file creation, but the description does not disclose side effects, overwrite behavior, prerequisites, or what definePlugin actually does. The schema's filePath mention of 'create' is the only implicit hint, which is insufficient for a generation tool.
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 that conveys the core action and target without any wasted words. It is appropriately minimal and immediately informative.
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 simple two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose but lacks behavioral caveats and does not differentiate from sibling generate_* tools. The absence of annotations and usage guidance creates notable clarity gaps.
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?
Both parameters (name and filePath) are fully described in the schema with examples, so the description adds no further semantic value. This meets the baseline for 100% schema coverage; the description is not required to compensate.
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 ('scaffolds') and the specific resource ('ExisJS Plugin') while adding implementation detail ('using definePlugin'). It inherently distinguishes the tool from sibling generate_* tools by naming the plugin resource, though it does not explicitly call out alternatives.
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 the sibling tools (e.g., generate_route, generate_gateway). There are no preconditions, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
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 present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'scaffolds' but does not disclose side effects such as file creation, overwriting behavior, or whether existing files are affected. This lack of behavioral detail is significant for a generation tool.
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 redundant content. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it appropriately concise.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal to be complete. It fails to explain the file-system impact of scaffolding, any prerequisites, or when to choose this tool over the sibling generation tools.
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 description coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both 'filePath' and 'paradigm', so the description itself need not add more. It does not, however, add any extra semantic context beyond 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 uses a specific verb 'scaffolds' and a specific resource 'idiomatic ExisJS route file', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that generate gateways, plugins, or configs. It unambiguously states the tool's function.
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 the sibling generators (e.g., exis_generate_gateway, exis_generate_plugin). The description simply states the action without contextual or alternative selections.
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 must fully disclose behavior. It only says it 'scaffolds a standard exis.config.ts file', which implies a write operation, but it does not mention whether it overwrites existing files, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. This is 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and the target, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
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?
The tool is simple with zero parameters, but the description lacks details about behavior such as overwrite behavior, idempotency, or what the 'standard' config file contains. Given there is no output schema, the description should have disclosed more to be fully complete, but it is minimally viable.
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 accepts zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description adds the context that the generated file is 'standard', which implies a fixed template. Since there are no parameters to describe, the baseline of 4 is appropriate and the description adds slight semantics beyond the empty 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 uses the specific verb 'Scaffolds' and names the exact resource 'exis.config.ts' plus its location 'in the root of the project'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling generation tools like exis_generate_route or exis_generate_plugin, which target different file types.
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 states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus the sibling generate tools. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent without explicit context for selecting this tool over others.
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'lists' without any extra context such as return format, ordering, filtering, or confirmations that this is non-destructive. For a list operation, more transparency about what 'available' means or what is returned would help.
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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easily parsed by an agent.
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 simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description is adequate to invoke it correctly. It could optionally mention what the result contains (e.g., filenames or paths), but for a basic list operation this is not essential.
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 schema provides full coverage by having no properties. The baseline for 0 params is 4; the description adds no parameter details because none are needed.
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 'lists' with a clear resource 'available ExisJS documentation files'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like exis_read_local_docs (reading) and exis_generate_* (generating) by focusing on enumeration.
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 by the name and sibling context: use this to discover available docs, then read them with exis_read_local_docs. However, the description provides no explicit instruction on when to choose this over alternatives, nor any exclusions.
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 basic read action but does not disclose return format, error behavior, or how the relative path is resolved. This is a minimal 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?
A single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function with no unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
For a simple tool with one documented parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It misses only an explicit statement about the return value (e.g., that it returns the file contents), but this is strongly implied by the verb 'Reads'.
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 fully documents filePath with a description and example, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what is already in 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 uses a specific verb ('Reads') and resource ('ExisJS documentation file by its relative path'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that list or generate documentation files.
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 guidance or references to alternatives, but the purpose is narrow and the intended use case (reading a specific doc by path) is implied. It does not explicitly contrast with exis_list_local_docs or the generate tools.
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Scaffolds' implies file creation, but it does not clarify whether existing files are overwritten, whether other files are modified, or what exact side effects occur. This is a gap for a code-generation tool.
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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the tool's action and purpose. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
For a tool with only two parameters and a clear purpose, the description plus schema provide sufficient information to understand what the tool does and how to invoke it. While return behavior is not described, this is acceptable given the scaffolding nature and absence of an output schema. Minor gap: no mention of file overwrite behavior.
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 already provides full parameter descriptions (filePath and paradigm), covering 100% of parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Scaffolds an idiomatic ExisJS Gateway (gateway.ts)' with a specific purpose ('for applying middleware/CORS/DI to a folder route'). The verb 'scaffolds' plus the resource and use-case distinguishes it from sibling tools that generate routes, plugins, or configs.
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 the tool: to create a gateway for middleware/CORS/DI on a folder route. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use exis_generate_route for routes', so it stops short of full guidance.
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:

[![exisjs-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/v25group/exisjs-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/v25group/exisjs-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![exisjs-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/v25group/exisjs-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/v25group/exisjs-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/v25group/exisjs-mcp'

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