Skip to main content
Glama

trust-oracle

by io.github.New1Direction

grade_mcp_server

Independently grade an MCP server (A–F) BEFORE connecting an agent to it. Returns spec-conformance, security (OWASP MCP Top 10), reliability, tool-hygiene and transparency sub-scores plus a connect/caution/avoid recommendation. Audited by wmcp.sh; the grade is free and never for sale.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe MCP server endpoint URL to grade (e.g. https://mcp.example.com/mcp).
freshNoForce a live re-probe instead of returning a recent cached grade.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return values (sub-scores and recommendation), mentions auditing by wmcp.sh, and states the grade is free. However, it does not detail side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits.

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 only two sentences long, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and then provides additional detail on outputs.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values. It covers spec-conformance, security, reliability, tool-hygiene, transparency sub-scores, and a recommendation. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced, and no annotations to lean on, so it's fairly complete.

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 parameter descriptions in the schema are already clear. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides for 'url' and 'fresh'.

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: 'Independently grade an MCP server (A–F) BEFORE connecting an agent to it.' It specifies the verb 'grade' and the resource 'MCP server', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'check_mcp_drift' and 'verify_before_execute' by focusing on grading.

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 indicates when to use the tool: 'BEFORE connecting an agent to it.' This provides clear context, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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

All trust-oracle 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct concern: drift detection, grading, and pre-execution verification. Descriptions clearly differentiate their purposes with no overlap.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tools use consistent snake_case with verb_noun pattern (check_drift, grade_server), though 'verify_before_execute' uses a slightly longer verb_prep_noun form. Overall pattern is clear and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is ideal for this focused server—each has a clear role without unnecessary complexity or missing essentials.

Completeness4/5

Covers the core trust verification workflow: drift detection, grading, and pre-execution gating. Minor gaps like a reset or history tool could exist but are not essential for primary use.

Resources