streamdeck-mcp

by verygoodplugins

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.3.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: creating actions, creating icons, installing the plugin, reading/writing pages, reading profiles, and restarting the app. Overlap is minimal to none.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'streamdeck_verb_noun' pattern (e.g., create_action, read_page, restart_app). The naming is predictable and uniform.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for the domain of Stream Deck profile management, covering essential operations without excess or omission.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core workflows (creating icons, actions, pages, profiles) but lacks delete operations for pages or actions, which is a minor gap.
Average 4/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 1 of 2 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on April 28, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
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?
The description indicates the tool is a read-only operation ('Read'), which is a basic behavioral disclosure. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden but does not elaborate on error behavior, idempotency, or consequences of providing multiple optional parameters.
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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and parameter relationships.
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 has no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It does not. Additionally, with four optional parameters, there is no guidance on how they interact (e.g., whether profile_name or profile_id is required, or if both must be provided).
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, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning by framing the parameters as alternatives, but the schema already provides clear descriptions for each parameter.
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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'profile page'. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'streamdeck_read_profiles', which reads all profiles. The description could explicitly mention that this tool targets a specific page, not the entire profile.
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 its siblings like 'streamdeck_read_profiles' or 'streamdeck_write_page'. The description merely lists parameters without contextual advice.
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 full responsibility. It states the tool creates a script in a specific directory and returns an action block, but it does not disclose whether existing files are overwritten, what permissions are needed, or what happens if the directory does not exist. These are critical behavioral traits for a mutation 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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and the return value. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Create' and the key resources, with no redundant or extraneous text.
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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete, covering the main effect (script creation) and output (action block). It could be improved by mentioning that the script is saved in a fixed directory and any prerequisite about the target directory's existence, but it is largely sufficient.
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%, and the schema already explains each parameter (name, command, working_directory, filename) clearly. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a 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 verb 'create' and the specific resources involved: an executable shell script in ~/StreamDeckScripts and a native Open action block. The purpose is distinct from sibling tools like streamdeck_create_icon or streamdeck_read_page, which handle icons or reading profiles.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, such as for batch creation or editing existing actions, nor does it reference sibling tools like streamdeck_write_page for page-level updates.
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 only states the basic action (list from active directory) without detailing what happens if the directory is missing, whether the list is filtered, or if there are any side effects. This is insufficient for a read operation.
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 sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it specifies the resource and the source directory. However, it could mention the format of the returned list or any constraints, but overall it is adequate.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description is not required to add parameter details. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as per guidelines.
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 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'Stream Deck desktop profiles' from a specific directory. It differentiates well from sibling tools like streamdeck_create_action or streamdeck_read_page, 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like streamdeck_read_page could read similar data, but the description does not clarify when to prefer read_profiles over read_page or other tools.
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 cover behavioral traits. It mentions 'restart' implying the app will close and reopen, but does not disclose potential side effects like losing unsaved work in the app or requiring user permissions. This is insufficient for a destructive action.
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 sentence conveys the entire purpose without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise for a tool with no parameters.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is complete in scope. However, it omits potential side effects (e.g., interruption of ongoing tasks). Adequate but not thorough.
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?
There are no parameters, so the input schema provides full coverage. The description adds the context of 'after profile changes', which is a small extra semantic. Baseline of 4 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 verb 'Restart' and the resource 'macOS Stream Deck desktop app', with a specific condition 'after profile changes'. This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like streamdeck_create_action or streamdeck_read_profiles.
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 implies usage after profile changes, but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if app is not running) or provide alternatives. For a simple restart, this is acceptable but lacks thorough guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses key behaviors: the app's in-memory state overwriting on quit, the tool's refusal to write when the app is running without auto_quit_app=True, and the need to restart the app to make changes visible. This provides high transparency for a mutation 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 paragraph of three sentences. It is front-loaded with the purpose, then delivers critical warnings and a procedural tip. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy or fluff.
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 complexity (10 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose, behavioral warnings, and a cross-reference to sibling tools (streamdeck_create_action, streamdeck_restart_app). It does not explain return values (no output schema needed) and slightly lacks explicit sibling comparisons, but overall it equips an agent well.
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?
Schema description coverage is 70%; the description adds value beyond the schema. It explains that streamdeck_create_action can build actions for the buttons parameter, notes that some MCP clients stringify nested arrays, and clarifies auto_quit_app's default false. The summary description does not detail every parameter but the added context compensates for the remaining 30% gap.
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 creates a new page or replaces/updates an existing Stream Deck desktop page manifest. It uses specific verbs ('Create', 'replace/update') and identifies the resource ('Stream Deck desktop page manifest'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like streamdeck_read_page (read-only) and streamdeck_restart_app (restart).
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 critical usage guidance: it warns that the Elgato app overwrites manifests on quit, explains that writes are refused unless auto_quit_app=True when the app is running, and recommends calling streamdeck_restart_app after edits. It implies when to use this tool versus reading or restarting, though it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavior: it generates PNGs, handles unknown MDI names with close-match suggestions, ignores top-level fields in batch mode, and describes the return shape (single dict or {"icons": [...]}). No contradictions with missing annotations.
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 dense but well-structured, separating single and batch use cases. It is longer than ideal, but every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded. Minor redundancy could be trimmed.
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 complexity (11 params, batch mode, no output schema), the description covers return formats, defaults, and error behavior for unknown names. It could explicitly mention that errors in batch are per-spec, but overall it is comprehensive enough for correct invocation.
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 description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains that 'mdi:' is optional for 'icon', recommends 'icon_scale' values for buttons, describes 'transparent_bg' for dial overlays, and clarifies that 'icons' can accept a JSON-encoded string. While schema coverage is 64%, the description compensates with practical usage details.
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 specifies the tool generates PNG icons with specific sizes (72x72 for buttons, 200x100 for touchstrip). It distinguishes between single icon and batch generation, and references sibling tool streamdeck_write_page for placing icons, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use batch mode ('30+ icons') to avoid round-trip timeouts, and when to use single mode. It clarifies that titles belong on streamdeck_write_page, not here, and that 'icon' and 'text' are mutually exclusive. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
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?
Describes idempotency (returns installed=false unless force=true) and the plugin's purpose (encoder support for touchstrip persistence). With no annotations, the description covers key behavioral aspects, though missing error handling details.
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?
Four concise sentences: action, rationale, behavior, usage note. No fluff, each sentence adds essential information.
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 simple install tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. Covers purpose, idempotency, force usage, and alternative auto-install mechanism.
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 only parameter 'force' is well-described in both schema (100% coverage) and description. Description adds context: 'Reinstall even if it already exists. Useful after upgrading streamdeck-mcp.' This adds value beyond 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 specifies the action (install), the target (bundled streamdeck-mcp plugin into Elgato Plugins directory), and the reason (encoder support for persistence). It distinguishes from siblings by noting that streamdeck_write_page auto-installs, so most callers don't need this tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use (force=true for reinstallation after upgrade) and when not to use (most callers don't need it because auto-install happens). Provides clear context for the tool's role.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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