Skip to main content
Glama
wllcyg

local-component-mcp

by wllcyg

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.
  • Latest release: v0.1.2

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Both tools have clearly distinct purposes: one searches for component files, the other parses a specific component's metadata. No overlap in functionality.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_component_detail, search_components), making it easy to predict their actions.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels minimal. While they cover basic search and detail retrieval, the scope is thin for a component management server.

    Completeness2/5

    The server lacks essential operations for a complete component workflow, such as listing all components, creating, updating, or deleting. Users can only search and get details, which is a notable gap.

  • Average 3.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 35 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • 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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the search function, but does not mention that it is a read-only operation, whether it scans recursively, what happens with invalid paths, or any rate limits. Minimal transparency beyond the obvious.

    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?

    Single sentence, no wasted words, directly states purpose. Perfectly 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?

    No output schema exists, but the description does not indicate what the tool returns (e.g., list of file paths). For a search tool, the return format is important for downstream use. Incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's 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?

    Schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions in the schema). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond 'search in a specified local directory workspace'. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already explains the parameters.

    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 it searches for Vue components (.vue files) in a directory. The verb 'search' and resource 'Vue components' are specific. It implicitly differentiates from sibling get_component_detail (which likely shows details of a single component), but does not explicitly contrast them.

    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 get_component_detail. There is no mention of preconditions, workspace requirements, or when not to use it. The agent has no context for choosing between siblings.

    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 provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, error conditions, or side effects. The agent cannot infer what happens for invalid file paths or non-Vue files.

    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?

    Extremely concise single sentence that communicates the core purpose without any redundancy. Every word adds value.

    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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but could be improved by mentioning what 'other metadata' includes or potential error scenarios. It misses cues for complete understanding.

    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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the only parameter 'filePath'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

    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 (parse), the resource (Vue component file), and the extracted elements (Props, Events, Slots, and other metadata). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search_components' which likely searches for components rather than parsing a specific file.

    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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'search_components'. The description implies it is for parsing a known .vue file path but lacks context like 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.

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

local-component-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

local-component-mcp 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/wllcyg/local-component-mcp'

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