Skip to main content
Glama
willsygao

tokenhub-aigc-model

by willsygao
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one generates an image purely from text, while the other edits/generates from 1-16 input images with optional masking. There is no realistic confusion between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow the same tokenhub_<verb>_image pattern with static verb prefixes: edit and generate. The naming convention is consistent and predictable.

    Tool Count4/5

    With only two tools, the server is slightly thin, but each tool covers a distinct core task in the image-generation domain. The focused scope makes the small count reasonable.

    Completeness4/5

    The two primary workflows—text-to-image generation and image editing/reinpainting—are covered, and the synchronous design avoids needing result-status tools. A minor gap is the lack of model-list or capability-discovery tooling, but agents can still complete the core tasks.

  • 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
    • 4 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 Apache 2.0.

  • 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

  • Behavior4/5

    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 call is synchronous, requires the user to have whitelisted the model and configured a dedicated API key, and that the response includes image URLs, request_id, and token usage. It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, but the key behavioral constraints are present.

    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 short, information-dense sentences with no redundancy. It ends with the action and auth prerequisite, then return values. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

    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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the important context: synchronous, auth required, default model, return shape. The schema covers parameter details, and what is missing (timeouts, error behavior) is minor for most use cases.

    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 documents all 10 parameters with detailed per-parameter descriptions, so the description adds very little for parameters. Mentioning the default model is useful but overlaps with the schema's model field. This is the expected baseline since schema coverage is 100%.

    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 tool's action: calling TokenHub to synchronously generate an image from a text description, and identifies the resource (image). It does not explicitly contrast with tokenhub_edit_image, but the 'generate from text' wording is distinct enough.

    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 the appropriate scenario (generate an image from a prompt) and provides essential prerequisites (whitelist + dedicated API key). However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over tokenhub_edit_image 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.

  • Behavior4/5

    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 the model default, whitelist requirement, mask support, URL/base64 input acceptance, and return fields. It does not mention error behavior, rate limits, or auth mechanics, but it covers the main operational characteristics well.

    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 compact, informative, and well-front-loaded. It covers the core operation, constraints, input formats, mask feature, and return payload in four sentences with no fluff or redundancy.

    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 12-parameter schema and absence of an output schema, the description provides enough operational context: input requirements, image count range, model default and whitelist, mask support, and response contents. It falls short of 5 only because of missing explicit alternative-tool routing and access/auth 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?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions mask, input images, model default, and input formats, but most of these details are already documented in the schema. It adds only high-level context like whitelist and return metadata, not substantial new parameter-level semantics.

    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 operation: calling TokenHub to generate an image from 1-16 input images plus a text prompt, with support for mask-based local repainting. It also specifies the output contents (image URL list, request_id, token usage), making the tool's purpose and scope unambiguous.

    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 gives clear contextual signals for when to use this tool: when existing images are provided as input and editing/repainting is needed. It doesn't explicitly exclude or name the alternative tokenhub_generate_image, so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

    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

tokenhub-aigc-model MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

tokenhub-aigc-model 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/willsygao/tokenhub-aigc-model'

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