Skip to main content
Glama
yagyaanshK

io.github.yagyaanshK/reclip

by yagyaanshK
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.2

  • Create a release to enable server coherence scoring.

  • Create a release to enable tool definition quality scoring.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • 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

  • Behavior4/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds the important behavioral trait that it does not download the media, which is useful beyond the annotations and clarifies the tool's non-destructive nature. No contradiction exists.

    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?

    One efficient sentence with no filler; the core action and key non-downloading behavior are front-loaded.

    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 simple one-parameter read-only inspection tool, the description covers purpose, output, and the key non-downloading behavior. Minor gaps include no explicit connection to list_supported_sites or failure conditions for unsupported URLs.

    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 sole url parameter is already well described as a public HTTP/HTTPS media page URL. The tool description mostly restates 'public media URL' and adds no additional syntax, examples, 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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect'), a clear resource ('public media URL'), and states the outcome ('return normalized metadata and available formats'), which distinguishes it from sibling download tools.

    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?

    It clearly implies use when metadata/formats are needed without downloading, and 'without downloading it' contrasts with download_media and download_clip. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 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?

    The description discloses key side effects: it writes a file, consumes significant bandwidth and storage, and requires authorization. This goes beyond the annotations and sets realistic expectations.

    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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main action and then notes the important side effects.

    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 straightforward download tool with a fully described schema, the description provides enough context about the action, side effects, and authorization requirement. No output schema is needed for this simple operation.

    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 schema already provides full descriptions for all four parameters, including the confirm_authorized flag. The tool description adds no per-parameter detail beyond what the schema covers, so the baseline of 3 applies.

    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 downloads a complete media item locally in MP4 or MP3 format, which is specific and distinguishes it from clip-only or inspection tools.

    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?

    It conveys that the tool is for complete authorized media downloads and hints at the need for user confirmation, but it does not explicitly direct users to download_clip for partial clips or inspect_media for previews.

    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

io.github.yagyaanshK/reclip MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

io.github.yagyaanshK/reclip MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama

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/yagyaanshK/reclip'

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