file-mcp

by yun-wulian

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: v0.3.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: session management, various replace methods, and full file writing. No two tools appear to do the same thing, and descriptions clarify the differences.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., abort_write_session, replace_literal), making them predictable and easy to interpret.
Tool Count5/5
10 tools is well within the ideal range. Each tool addresses a specific file editing operation without being excessive or insufficient.
Completeness2/5
The tool set lacks basic file operations like reading, deleting, or listing files. While editing and writing are covered, the absence of read functionality creates a significant gap for typical file management workflows.
Average 3/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit 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 only mentions the replacement condition but omits critical details such as whether the operation is destructive, required permissions, error handling when occurrence count doesn't match, or any side effects on file state.
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 a single sentence, making it concise. However, it is overly terse and does not front-load essential information like the tool's primary function beyond what the name implies. Additional context could be added without sacrificing conciseness.
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 11 parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the return value (output schema exists but not referenced), error conditions, or advanced options. A more comprehensive description is needed for correct tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly references the 'expected_occurrences' parameter but fails to explain other key parameters like 'pattern', 'replacement', 'path', or flags such as 'case_sensitive' and 'dotall'. This leaves significant gaps in parameter understanding.
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 replaces regex matches conditionally based on occurrence count. It clearly specifies the resource (regex matches) and the verb (replace), distinguishing it from literal or block replacements among siblings. However, it could be more explicit about the exact behavior when the count does not match.
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 versus alternatives like replace_literal or replace_block. The description implies a conditional regex replacement but fails to provide explicit scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'append' which implies mutation but lacks details on permissions, error handling, idempotency, or effects on existing content.
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?
A single 8-word sentence that is direct and front-loaded. No wasted words.
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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema not described, the description is too minimal. It lacks preconditions, return info, and error details, requiring the agent to guess.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the parameters. 'content' and 'session_id' are named but not described, forcing reliance on inference.
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 (append) and resource (text chunk) and specifies context (open write session). This distinguishes it from sibling session lifecycle and write tools.
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 versus alternatives like 'apply_text_edits' or 'replace_block'. It only implies session must be open but doesn't mention preconditions or exclusions.
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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Start a chunked write session' without mentioning that the session must be committed/aborted, potential side effects, or required permissions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (7 words) but under-specified. Conciseness should not come at the cost of missing critical information. It fails to earn its place by omitting essential usage details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 8 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and 9 sibling tools, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain the workflow, how the session integrates with other write tools, or the meaning of any parameters. The presence of an output schema does not compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 8 parameters (e.g., path, encoding, if_exists). The agent gains no additional insight beyond parameter names and types.
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 ('Start') and the resource ('chunked write session'), and specifies it is 'for large generated files', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'write_full_text'.
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 use for large files when chunked writing is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'write_full_text' or provide context about workflow (e.g., must commit or abort).
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, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions the occurrence count condition but does not clarify what happens when count matches (replaces all? replaces exactly expected?), nor other effects like file modification, permissions, or error handling.
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 one sentence, no fluff. However, it may be too terse given the tool's complexity, but conciseness is good.
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?
With 9 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It explains only the core condition but misses context for many parameters and behavior. Output schema exists, so return values are not required, but other aspects are lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description should explain parameters. It only mentions 'literal text' and 'expected occurrence count', leaving 7 parameters (path, encoding, newline, bom, etc.) unexplained. The description adds minimal value over the schema.
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 replaces literal text conditional on occurrence count matching, which clearly differentiates from replace_regex (regex) and replace_block. However, it could be more explicit about what 'replace' means (all occurrences or exactly expected_occurrences?).
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 versus siblings like replace_regex or replace_block. The description only states a condition, not usage context.
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, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions non-overlapping constraint but omits details on mutation safety, atomicity, effect on file, or how 'base_hash' guard works.
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 with no redundancy. Front-loaded with key information.
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 complexity (7 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and many siblings), the description is too sparse. It fails to clarify 'normalized text', offset semantics, when to prefer this tool, or what the output schema contains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage in the top-level schema; nested $defs have minimal descriptions. Tool description adds no explanation of parameters like 'bom', 'newline', 'encoding', 'base_hash', or 'final_newline', leaving the agent without semantic context.
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 action ('apply'), resource ('multiple non-overlapping normalized-text span edits'), and key detail (0-based offsets). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'apply_text_edits' (likely singular) and 'replace_literal'.
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 instead of alternatives like 'apply_text_edits' or 'replace_literal'. The description only states what it does, not the context or prerequisites for use.
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?
With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions the outcome (no data written) but omits side effects such as session invalidation, error conditions, or whether prior appended chunks are discarded. The description is too terse to be fully transparent.
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 a single, focused sentence with no extraneous information. It is concise and front-loaded with the key action and differentiator, though very brief.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description is minimally adequate. It states the core purpose and key differentiator, but lacks detail on parameters and usage context. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, yet the description could still elaborate on when and how to apply the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should add parameter meaning. The only parameter `session_id` is named but the description provides no format, source, or constraints, adding no value 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'abort' and the resource 'chunked write session', and distinguishes from siblings like commit_write_session by adding 'without writing anything', making the purpose unambiguous.
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 alternatives (e.g., when to abort vs commit). The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage context from sibling tool names.
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?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behaviors but only mentions atomicity and non-overlap. It omits details about encoding, line endings, concurrency via base_hash, and behavior on overlap.
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, concise sentence with no superfluous content, effectively front-loading the core purpose.
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 tool complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists but unused), the description is too sparse. It provides only the minimal function without addressing usage nuances or parameter roles.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema_description_coverage is 0%, meaning top-level parameters have no descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter semantics, leaving path, bom, newline, encoding, base_hash, final_newline unexplained.
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 applies multiple non-overlapping line-range edits in a single atomic write, distinguishing it from siblings like replace_literal or replace_regex that handle single edits.
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 usage for multiple non-overlapping edits in a batch, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparisons with alternatives like apply_text_spans or replace_block.
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 must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'atomic file replacement' but does not cover side effects, idempotency, permissions, or what happens if the session is invalid. This is insufficient for a commit operation.
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 a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more informative without adding verbosity. Every word earns its place.
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?
The description is minimal but covers the core action. Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), return values are not required. However, it lacks context about prerequisites, error cases, or the relationship with sibling tools, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it provides no explanation for the 'session_id' parameter beyond its name. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning or context.
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 ('Commit') and the resource ('chunked write session'). It also emphasizes 'atomic file replacement', which distinguishes it from siblings like 'append_write_chunk' or 'abort_write_session'.
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 used after appending chunks to finalize a session, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or when alternatives (like abort) are more appropriate. No exclusions or context provided.
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?
Description discloses key behaviors like style controls and base-hash protection, but fails to detail what happens on base-hash mismatch, path non-existence, or the effect of 'if_exists' and 'create_dirs'. With no annotations, the description carries the burden and only moderately covers behavioral traits.
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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words, but could be slightly longer to cover more details without being verbose.
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 9 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (per context), the description is too short. It omits how each parameter affects behavior and what the output looks like. The output schema is present but not referenced, so the description should still provide minimal return value context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'style controls' and 'base-hash protection' but does not explain individual parameters like 'bom', 'newline', 'encoding', 'final_newline', 'base_hash', 'if_exists', or 'create_dirs'. This is insufficient for a 9-parameter tool.
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 'Write an entire text file' with specific verb and resource, and mentions 'explicit style controls' and 'optional base-hash protection', which distinguish it from siblings that handle incremental writes or edits.
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 full file write but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'append_write_chunk' or 'apply_text_edits'. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.
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 exist, so the description carries full burden. It mentions base-hash protection and style preservation but does not disclose other behaviors like file modification, session requirements, or error handling. The description is adequate 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and unique features.
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 tool's complexity (11 parameters, 4 enums, no schema descriptions), the description is insufficient. It lacks explanations for 'base-hash protection', 'style preservation', and marker semantics, which are critical for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 11 parameters, the description provides only high-level context about markers and block replacement. It does not explain key parameters like mode, occurrence, bom, or newline, leaving agents to infer from names and enums.
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 verb ('Replace') and the resource ('marker-delimited block'), and adds unique details like base-hash protection and style preservation, distinguishing it from siblings like replace_literal and replace_regex.
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 blocks delimited by markers but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or exclude cases. Given sibling tools, more guidance would be beneficial.
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:

[![file-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yun-wulian/file-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yun-wulian/file-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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