Skip to main content
Glama

MCP Queen

by com.mcpqueen

Get Server Grade

get_server_grade
Read-only

Get the full grade and verbatim probe evidence for one MCP server, by its official registry name (e.g. 'com.healthai/radar').

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesRegistry server name

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gradeYes
scoreYes
versionNo
evidenceNo
repo_urlNo
probed_atYes
reachableNo
latency_msNo
remote_urlNo
tool_countNo
descriptionNo
provisionalYes
server_nameYes
protocol_accessNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "description": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "evidence": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "items": {
+            "additionalProperties": true,
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        {
+          "additionalProperties": true,
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "grade": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "latency_ms": {
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "probed_at": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "protocol_access": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "provisional": {
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "boolean"
+      ]
+    },
+    "reachable": {
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "boolean",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "remote_url": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "repo_url": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "score": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "server_name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "tool_count": {
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "version": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "server_name",
+    "grade",
+    "score",
+    "provisional",
+    "probed_at"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool returns 'full grade and verbatim probe evidence', providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 clear, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and example.

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?

With an output schema available, the description sufficiently explains what is returned (grade and evidence). The tool is simple with one parameter, and the description covers the necessary context.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'name' with a basic description. The tool's description adds a concrete example ('com.healthai/radar'), enhancing understanding.

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 specific verb 'Get' and resource 'full grade and verbatim probe evidence', and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on a single server by registry name.

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?

The description implies usage when you have the exact registry name, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like list_grades or search_servers.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All MCP Queen toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: getting grades, detailed evidence, listing top servers, searching servers by task, searching tools, searching trust evidence, and submitting feedback. No two tools overlap in functionality.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., get_server_grade, search_servers, submit_feedback). The naming is predictable and uniform.

Tool Count5/5

With 7 tools, the surface is well-scoped for a registry and evidence server. Each tool serves a distinct purpose, covering retrieval, search, and feedback submission without unnecessary bloat.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core operations (getting grades, search, feedback), but there are minor gaps: no tool to list all servers (only top graded) and no direct way to list tools for a specific server. These are workable but not fully complete.

Resources