TypeScript MCP Server Boilerplate

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct and non-overlapping purpose: calculator for arithmetic, generate-image for AI image generation, geocode for address-to-coordinates conversion, get-weather for weather data, greet for greetings, and time for timezone-based time. There is no ambiguity or confusion between these tools.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming is mostly consistent with a verb-noun pattern (e.g., generate-image, get-weather, greet, time), but there are minor deviations: 'calculator' is a noun-only name, and 'geocode' is a verb-only name. These deviations slightly break the pattern but do not severely impact readability.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the count is well-scoped for a boilerplate server that demonstrates diverse functionalities. Each tool serves a unique purpose, and there are no redundant or unnecessary tools, making the set appropriate for its intended scope.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers a broad range of common utility functions (arithmetic, image generation, geocoding, weather, greetings, time), but as a boilerplate, it lacks deeper domain-specific coverage. There are no obvious gaps for its general-purpose nature, though it doesn't provide full CRUD operations for any single domain.
Average 3.1/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates AI images using a specific model, which implies it's a creation/mutation operation (likely not read-only), but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, cost implications, or output format. For a generative tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the tool's function and model used, with zero wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient for quick understanding.
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 complexity of an AI image generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., mutation nature, rate limits), output expectations (e.g., image format, size), and usage constraints. While it specifies the model, more context is needed for the agent to use this tool effectively and safely in varied scenarios.
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%, with the single parameter 'prompt' fully documented in the schema (type, length constraints, and description recommending English). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as prompt formatting tips or model-specific guidelines. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
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: '텍스트 프롬프트를 입력받아 AI 이미지를 생성합니다' (takes a text prompt as input to generate an AI image). It specifies the action (generate) and resource (AI image), and mentions the specific model (FLUX.1-schnell). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'calculator' or 'geocode', though the domain is distinct enough that differentiation is implied rather than explicit.
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 mentions the model used (FLUX.1-schnell) but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't indicate if this is for creative vs. technical images, or when to prefer this over other image-generation methods. The lack of usage context leaves the agent without explicit 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens with invalid coordinates. For a tool that likely calls an external API, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant information. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating current weather from forecast information for clarity.
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 that an output schema exists (which presumably defines the return structure), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with no annotations and three parameters, the description is minimally adequate—it states the purpose but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. The existence of an output schema raises the baseline, but gaps remain.
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%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters with their types, ranges, and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it merely repeats that coordinates and forecast period are inputs. This 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 tool's function: it takes latitude/longitude coordinates and forecast period as input and provides current weather and forecast information for that location. The verb '제공합니다' (provides) is specific, and the resource '날씨와 예보 정보' (weather and forecast information) is well-defined. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'geocode' or 'time', which prevents a perfect 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 alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'geocode' (which might provide location data) or 'time' (which might provide time-based information), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage context solely from the tool's name and description.
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 mentions performing arithmetic and returning results, but doesn't cover critical behaviors like error handling (e.g., division by zero), performance characteristics, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond the basic operation.
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 in Korean that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and appropriately sized for a simple calculator tool, with zero waste.
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 low complexity (basic arithmetic), high schema coverage (100%), and presence of an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It covers the basic operation but doesn't address potential issues like errors or limitations, which could be important for an AI agent to use it correctly in edge cases.
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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (number1, number2, operator with enum). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that the operator is for '사칙연산' (four basic operations), which aligns with the enum. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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: '두 개의 숫자와 연산자를 입력받아 사칙연산을 수행하고 결과를 반환합니다' (Takes two numbers and an operator, performs arithmetic operations, and returns the result). It specifies the verb (performs arithmetic), resource (numbers), and operation type (four basic operations). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'greet' or 'time' beyond being a calculator function, which is somewhat implied but not stated.
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 any prerequisites, constraints, or comparison with sibling tools (e.g., use 'calculator' for math vs. 'get-weather' for weather data). Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic function but lacks details on traits like error handling (e.g., invalid timezone inputs), rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 function without any fluff. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. 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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete behavioral details, it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of structured context, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.
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 description mentions '타임존을 입력받아' (receives a timezone as input), which aligns with the single parameter 'timezone'. However, the input schema already has 100% coverage with a clear description and examples (e.g., Asia/Seoul). The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score 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 tool's purpose: it takes a timezone as input and returns the current time for that timezone. The verb '반환합니다' (returns) and resource '현재 시간' (current time) are specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-weather' which might also involve time-related data, 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 alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to prefer this over other time-related tools (if any existed) or how it relates to siblings like 'get-weather'. This leaves the agent without 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 the tool returns a greeting but doesn't elaborate on any behavioral traits, such as error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations, this minimal description is insufficient to inform the agent about how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.
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 function without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and clear, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information concisely.
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 low complexity (simple greeting function), high schema coverage (100%), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the basic purpose and inputs, though it lacks behavioral details. For this context, it provides enough information for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively, but not exhaustively.
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 description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema fully documents both parameters ('name' and 'language') with descriptions and an enum for 'language'. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage notes. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
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: it takes a name and language as input and returns a greeting. It specifies the verb ('returns a greeting') and resources ('name and language'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'calculator' or 'get-weather', which is why it doesn't reach a score of 5.
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 any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to choose 'greet' over other tools like 'time' or 'geocode'. This lack of usage context leaves the agent without direction on appropriate scenarios for invocation.
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 the basic function but lacks details on traits like rate limits, accuracy, data sources, error handling, or authentication needs. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 in Korean that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.
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 low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks behavioral context like error cases or usage limitations, which slightly reduces completeness for a tool with no annotations.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'address' with examples. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as formatting details or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 with specific verbs and resources: '입력받아' (receives input) and '반환합니다' (returns) for '위도와 경도 좌표' (latitude and longitude coordinates). It distinguishes from siblings like calculator, generate-image, get-weather, greet, and time by focusing on geocoding rather than calculation, image generation, weather data, greeting, or time functions.
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 does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for single addresses only or if there are limitations compared to other geocoding services.
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:

[![mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bjh5098/mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bjh5098/mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bjh5098/mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bjh5098/mcp-server)

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/bjh5098/mcp-server'

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