Skip to main content
Glama

tech-risk

by io.github.rezearcher

scan_mcp_preview

FREE preview scan of a target MCP server for tool-poisoning / prompt-injection. Returns issue count, severity breakdown, risk score, and verdict (clear/review/block) — but NOT which tools or the evidence. Use this to check any MCP server (including your own) at no cost; if issues are found, call the paid scan_mcp_server for the itemized findings + remediation. No payment required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesTarget MCP server endpoint URL to preview-scan (free)

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it returns only issue count, severity breakdown, risk score, and verdict, but NOT which tools or evidence. Also mentions it's free and requires no payment, implying no destructive side effects.

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?

Four concise sentences, each adding value: purpose, return details, limitations, and usage guidance. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary information: what the tool does, what it returns (and does not return), and when to use the paid sibling. Fully adequate for correct invocation.

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?

Only one parameter 'url' with 100% schema coverage. The description adds minimal context beyond the schema (e.g., 'free preview-scan'), but the schema itself is clear. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the parameter semantics are already well-defined.

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?

Explicitly states it's a free preview scan for tool-poisoning/prompt-injection on MCP servers. Clearly distinguishes from the paid scan_mcp_server sibling by specifying it returns only summary stats, not detailed findings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit guidance: use this free preview first; if issues found, call paid scan_mcp_server for itemized findings and remediation. This clarifies when to use this tool vs the paid alternative.

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

All tech-risk 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The tools are organized into clear families (chain, crypto, defi, pm, enrich, scan) and each targets a distinct data type. The preview tools are explicitly labeled as free samples, reducing but not eliminating confusion with their paid counterparts. Some overlap exists between chain_wallet and chain_balance, and between enrich_domain and enrich_tech_risk, but descriptions clarify the difference.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent resource_action pattern using snake_case (chain_balance, crypto_funding, enrich_domain). Preview tools consistently append '_preview' to their paid counterpart. The only minor variation is abbreviations like 'tx', 'pm', 'defi', but these are uniform.

Tool Count3/5

At 22 tools, the server is on the heavy side. The eight preview tools duplicate the functionality of their paid versions and inflate the count, though they serve a legitimate 'try before pay' purpose. The remaining 14 paid tools cover a wide range of risk data, making the count borderline appropriate.

Completeness4/5

The set covers on-chain balances, token security, DeFi yields, crypto prices, funding rates, prediction markets, domain enrichment, tech-risk CVE scanning, and MCP server auditing, which is a comprehensive risk toolkit. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no historical data, no address reputation, no token price by address), but the core workflows are well covered.

Resources