Skip to main content
Glama
xtdexw

Logo MCP

by xtdexw
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one analyzes logo candidates on a website, while the other extracts a logo icon link from a URL. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool based on the task.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (analyze_logo_candidates and extract_logo), using snake_case throughout. The naming is predictable and readable, with no deviations or mixed conventions.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for a logo-related domain. While the tools cover analysis and extraction, there are likely gaps in functionality (e.g., no tools for creating, updating, or deleting logos), making the scope appear incomplete and potentially limiting for agents.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for a logo management domain. It lacks basic CRUD operations (e.g., create_logo, update_logo, delete_logo) and other expected functionalities like logo validation or comparison. Agents will encounter dead ends when trying to perform common logo-related tasks.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

  • 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool analyzes and returns details, but doesn't specify what kind of details, whether it's a read-only operation, potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

    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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

    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?

    Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that analyzes and returns details. It doesn't explain what '详细信息' (detailed information) includes, such as the structure or type of data returned, leaving the agent uncertain about the output format and content.

    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, with the single parameter 'url' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as URL format requirements or examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

    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 ('分析' meaning 'analyze') and resource ('网站的所有Logo候选项' meaning 'all logo candidates of a website'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'extract_logo', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

    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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'extract_logo' or any alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios for application, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

    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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (extract logo link) but doesn't describe how it works, potential errors, rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

    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, clear sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

    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?

    Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what the extracted logo link looks like (e.g., URL format, image type), potential failure modes, or how it interacts with the sibling tool. For a tool with no structured metadata, more contextual detail is needed.

    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, with the single parameter 'url' clearly documented as '要提取Logo的网站URL' (website URL to extract logo from). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema, such as URL format requirements or examples. With high schema coverage, 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.

    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 purpose: '从指定网站URL提取Logo图标链接' (Extract logo icon link from specified website URL). It specifies both the action (extract) and the resource (logo icon link from URL), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'analyze_logo_candidates', which appears related but has a different 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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'analyze_logo_candidates' or any other tools, nor does it specify prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

    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

logo-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

logo-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/xtdexw/logo-mcp'

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