calibre-mcp

by xmkevinchen

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: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: reading vs writing, metadata vs custom columns, search vs series listing. No overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names use verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, search_, set_) consistently, with clear imperative verbs.
Tool Count5/5
7 tools is well-scoped for a Calibre library server, covering search, read, and write operations without bloat.
Completeness4/5
Covers search, read metadata, get file path, list series, set metadata, manage custom columns. Missing delete or create book operations, but core workflows are covered.
Average 4/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 3.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 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
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 carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention read vs. write behavior, potential performance impacts, or what happens with invalid queries. The description focuses on syntax examples but lacks transparency on side effects or limitations.
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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then provides structured examples and parameter explanations. It is concise but each section adds value. Minor improvement: the 'Args' section repeats parameter info partially redundant with schema.
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 complexity (search syntax) and that an output schema exists (reducing need to describe return values), the description covers query usage well. However, it lacks information about error handling or behavior when no results match.
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 explains the query parameter with syntax examples, adds meaning for fields, limit, and sort_by beyond the schema (which has no descriptions). With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well for most parameters, though it could clarify acceptable values for fields and sort_by.
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 that the tool searches books using Calibre's search syntax. It specifies the resource (books) and the action (search), and distinguishes from siblings like get_book_info which retrieves info for a specific book.
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 examples of search syntax and parameters, implicitly guiding usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_book_info for specific books), nor does it mention any prerequisites or caveats.
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?
Fully describes the sorting behavior (by series_index) and the purpose. No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't mention any destructive or side effects (none expected). Could mention that only top-level books are listed or if nested series are included, but overall good.
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?
Short and clear, front-loaded with main purpose. The example adds value but slightly increases length. Could be more concise if example removed, but it helps 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?
Given no annotations and an output schema exists, the description suffices for a straightforward list operation. Doesn't explain return format (but output schema covers that). No coverage for what constitutes a 'series' or error handling, but acceptable for a simple tool.
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 0% (parameters not described in schema), so description must compensate. The description briefly mentions 'series_name' and 'fields' in Args, but adds no detail beyond what the parameter names imply. For example, it doesn't explain what 'fields' values are valid beyond being a list of strings.
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?
Clearly states it lists all books in a series sorted by series_index, which is a specific verb+resource+sorting detail. Distinguishes from siblings like 'get_book_info' which retrieves a single book or 'search_books' which filters by criteria.
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?
Describes when to use (to see reading order) with a concrete example. However, doesn't explicitly say when not to use or suggest alternatives like 'search_books' or 'get_book_info'.
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 bears full burden. It discloses the tool returns metadata fields (title, authors, etc.) but does not mention side effects, auth requirements, or error conditions (e.g., invalid book_id). Acceptable but not thorough.
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 extremely concise: two sentences for the main description and a docstring-style parameter listing. Every part adds value, no 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 has only one parameter, schema coverage 0%, and an output schema exists (reducing need to explain return values), the description covers the essential behavior. Minor omission: no mention of what happens if book_id not found, but acceptable for simplicity.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It clearly defines book_id as 'The Calibre book ID', adding semantic meaning beyond the schema type 'integer'. No other parameters exist, making this sufficient.
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 retrieves detailed metadata for a book by its Calibre ID, specifying the exact resource (book) and action (get info). It distinguishes from siblings like search_books (search) and set_metadata (update).
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 tool is for retrieving full metadata when you know the book_id, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or mention when not to use it (e.g., for searching by title, use search_books).
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 provided, so description carries full burden. It correctly portrays a read-only list operation, and mentions the optional 'details' parameter effect. Could add that it returns all columns with no filters or pagination.
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?
Very concise three sentences: one states purpose, one contrasts with standard fields, one describes parameter. No wasted words.
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 1 parameter and output schema exists, description covers the input well but doesn't hint at output structure or potential size. Still adequate for a simple list tool.
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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the only parameter 'details' with a clear purpose: 'include column types, default values, and other metadata'. This adds meaning 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?
Description clearly states the tool lists custom columns, distinguishes from standard fields, and contrasts with siblings like set_custom_column and get_book_info.
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?
Description implies use when you need to see all custom columns but lacks explicit when-not or alternatives. Sibling names hint at related tools but not mentioned.
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?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It indicates the tool provides an absolute file path and that the result is used for unzipping. It does not specify side effects, but given its read-only nature inferred from 'get', this is adequate. No contradictions with annotations (none provided).
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 very concise: two sentences plus an args section. Each part serves a purpose: stating the action, contextualizing within a workflow, and documenting the parameter. No unnecessary words.
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 it has an output schema (not shown, but present), the description does not need to explain return values. It explains the parameter sufficiently for a simple tool. The only missing aspect is potentially clarifying that the path is absolute, which it does. It is complete for its complexity.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description adds value by explaining the parameter's purpose ('book_id: The Calibre book ID') in the args section, but this is minimal. The schema already provides the parameter name and type. The description does not elaborate on format or constraints.
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 returns the absolute file path of a book's EPUB file. It also specifies the purpose within the reading-quiz workflow, distinguishing it from siblings by emphasizing it's for obtaining the path to enable unzipping and reading.
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 explains the core purpose for a specific workflow, implying usage when needing the EPUB path. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings. The requirement for a book_id is clear from the schema.
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?
Clearly states that field values are REPLACED (behavioral trait). Provides details on how tags and identifiers should be formatted. Since no annotations exist, description handles transparency well, though it could mention input validation limits.
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?
Description is well-structured with a brief intro, a bullet list of supported fields, important notes, and an Args section. It is relatively concise but the list of fields could be more compact.
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 no annotations, description covers purpose, supported fields, replacement behavior, and format requirements. Output schema exists (context signal) so return values are not needed. Slight lack of guidance on error handling or prerequisite conditions.
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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains book_id is 'the Calibre book ID' and fields is a dict mapping field names to values with examples. This adds significant meaning beyond schema property names.
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?
Description specifies verb 'set' and resource 'metadata fields for a book' with a clear list of supported fields. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_book_info' and 'set_custom_column' by focusing on standard metadata.
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?
Description explains when to use (setting standard metadata) and provides usage examples for tags and identifiers. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like set_custom_column for custom fields.
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?
The description discloses behavior: it sets values, supports appending via the 'append' parameter. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the effect of the 'append' parameter well, but does not mention any destructive implications or error conditions beyond standard input validation.
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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, a usage tip, then a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous information.
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 moderate complexity, annotations are missing, and schema coverage is 0%, the description provides adequate parameter explanations and a cross-reference to get_custom_columns. It could mention return value (since output schema exists, not required) but the description is largely complete.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines each parameter: book_id (Calibre book ID), column (lookup name format with example), value (value to set), and append (explanation of behavior). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.
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 sets the value of a custom column for a book, specifying the action ('set'), resource ('custom column'), and scope ('for a book'). It distinguishes from siblings by referencing get_custom_columns() for lookup.
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 explicit guidance on how to reference columns via lookup name and directs to get_custom_columns() for available columns. It implies usage context but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternative approaches beyond listing siblings.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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