Skip to main content
Glama
yintzuyuan

glyphs-info-mcp

by yintzuyuan
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.4.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools serve entirely distinct purposes: handbook for accessing the Glyphs Handbook content, and vocabulary for UI terminology translation. There is no overlap in functionality or intent.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tool names are single, descriptive nouns (handbook, vocabulary), which is consistent. However, they do not follow a verb_noun pattern; the actions inside each tool use verbs (search, get, translate), which is clear but slightly inconsistent in style across levels.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a general 'glyphs-info' purpose. While each tool is well-featured, the scope might benefit from additional tools covering other info domains, though the current count is not unreasonable for a focused info server.

    Completeness3/5

    The handbook tool covers a wide range of operations (search, get, TOC, parameters, cache) and the vocabulary tool covers translation and search. However, missing potential areas like glyph specifications or font metadata suggest the set is not fully complete for all Glyphs information needs.

  • Average 3.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 1 commit 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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions cache management and a force parameter, implying some mutability. But it does not clarify whether operations are read-only (except cache update), authentication requirements, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with 9 parameters.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness3/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is structured with sections (Actions, Args, Examples) but is somewhat verbose, repeating the action list in both free text and examples. Could be more concise while retaining clarity. Adequate but not optimized.

    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 high complexity (9 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers actions and parameters but lacks details on return values, error handling, and usage contexts for specific actions. It is sufficient for basic use but incomplete for nuanced decision-making.

    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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It lists all parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'filename: Chapter filename (for get action)'). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema. Defaults are mentioned but not all implications are clear, so 4.

    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 states it provides 'Glyphs Handbook operations' and lists distinct actions (search, get, toc, children, etc.). This clearly identifies the tool's purpose, but does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'vocabulary', which may also be a reference tool. Thus a 4.

    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 for common actions, giving concrete usage. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus the sibling 'vocabulary' or when to prefer one action over another. Usage guidance is implicit but not explicit.

    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?

    The description explains actions and parameters, but since no annotations are provided, it carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, or has side effects. The examples suggest it is query-oriented, but behavior beyond parameter descriptions is sparse.

    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 well-structured with a header, bulleted actions, parameter list, and examples. It is slightly verbose but efficiently conveys necessary information. Every sentence adds value.

    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 multiple actions and six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers actions and parameters thoroughly. It lacks details about return format and potential errors, but is sufficient for typical use.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters5/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter (action, term, target, locale, source_locale, target_locales), providing defaults, and showing usage via examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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?

    The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Glyphs UI terminology translation' and lists four specific actions (translate, search, mapping, categories) with distinct functions. It distinguishes the tool from its sibling 'handbook' by focusing on translation tasks.

    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?

    Examples provide typical usage scenarios, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'handbook' or when not to use it. The description implies usage through action definitions but lacks exclusion criteria.

    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

glyphs-info-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

glyphs-info-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/yintzuyuan/glyphs-info-mcp'

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