Preflight
Server Details
Check if your MCP server is ready to publish on the MCP Registry, Smithery, or npm.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- evanfollis/skillfoundry-products
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Available Tools
1 toolcheck_publish_readinessCInspect
Validate whether an MCP server is publishable on real directories (MCP Registry, Smithery, npm). Provide raw artifact contents. Returns evidence-backed findings with source-linked directory rules.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| readme | No | Raw README content | |
| manifest | No | Raw server.json content | |
| package_json | No | Raw package.json content | |
| smithery_yaml | No | Raw smithery.yaml content | |
| pyproject_toml | No | Raw pyproject.toml content | |
| target_directories | No | Directories to check against. Defaults to all applicable. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It does disclose that the tool returns evidence-backed findings and references source-linked directory rules, adding some behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether it makes network calls, or how it handles invalid inputs, leaving gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (three sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, the second sentence 'Provide raw artifact contents' is redundant with the input schema and does not earn its place. The third sentence is dense and arguably jargony, though it adds some specificity about the output.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, placing a heavy burden on the description. The description gives a high-level summary of the return type ('evidence-backed findings') but does not explain the structure of the findings, how 'source-linked directory rules' work, or how the tool processes the multiple raw content inputs. This is insufficient for full clarity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for individual parameters, such as the meaning of 'target_directories' defaults or how the raw content fields interact.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: validating publishability of an MCP server against specific directories (MCP Registry, Smithery, npm). However, the second sentence 'Provide raw artifact contents' is ambiguous—it could be read as a user instruction or as an output feature—which slightly muddies the primary purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives. The description implies it is for pre-publishing validation, but it does not state prerequisites, timing, or exclusions (e.g., when not to use it or what to do instead).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
1 tool update
- First observed
check_publish_readiness
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Scan any MCP server for tool-poisoning, security, auth & license. Trust score before install.
MCP Spec Compliance MCP — audits any MCP server.json against the official Model Context Protocol
Vet any MCP server before you depend on it. Stamp: PASS, REVIEW, or BLOCK.
Publish and discover MCP servers via the official MCP Registry. Powered by HAPI MCP server.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceLets users discover, compare, and audit public MCP servers from the official registry, validate server.json metadata, and generate installation snippets and publication checklists.6MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceAudits MCP server configurations and packages for security risks such as typosquats, credential exposure, and malicious code, with zero dependencies and no execution.2MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceFinds problems in your MCP servers before your users do. Scans your Claude config, checks every server's capabilities, actually calls tools to make sure they work, and catches breaking changes between versions.131,338146MIT
- FlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceA deterministic, network-free MCP server for validating repository release hygiene and version alignment in local projects. It enables automated repository health checks and generates standardized release checklists based on project state.1-
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
Since there is only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion—its purpose is clear and unique. The tool's name and description distinctly indicate its role in validating publishability.
The tool uses a clear verb_noun format ('check_publish_readiness'), and with a single tool, naming is trivially consistent. It is descriptive and follows common conventions.
With just one tool, the server feels minimal for a validation task, but the tool is focused and well-defined. However, a typical well-scoped server would have more tools to handle different aspects, so it's borderline thin.
The tool appears to cover the entire preflight validation process, including checking multiple registries and providing evidence-backed findings. No obvious gaps exist within the stated domain.