Kadent Scan
Server Details
Free, read-only security scanner for remote MCP servers, before you connect them.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Available Tools
1 toolscan_mcp_serverScan an MCP server for security risksARead-onlyInspect
Runs a free, read-only security scan of a remote MCP server before you connect it. Performs an ordinary MCP handshake (never anything more invasive), lists the server's tools, rates each one's capabilities (private-data access, untrusted content, network egress, destructive actions), flags prompt-injection patterns in tool descriptions, and reports whether the lethal trifecta is reachable. Scan only servers you run or are entitled to connect to.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The https:// URL of the remote MCP server to scan |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'read-only' and 'never anything more invasive,' while adding a detailed method breakdown. It also warns about authorization requirements, going beyond the structured hints without contradicting them.
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?
Three sentences carry a large amount of information with no filler: the headline action, the specific scan behaviors, and the usage restriction. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause earns its place.
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?
For a simple one-parameter read-only tool, this description covers purpose, method, restrictions, and even highlights report contents. The only gaps are domain jargon like 'lethal trifecta' being undefined and no output schema to clarify return values, but invoking the tool correctly is fully supported.
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 fully documents the single url parameter, including the https:// scheme and purpose 'to scan.' The description reinforces remote-ness and entitlement but adds no new parameter-specific meaning, so the schema-coverage baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Runs a free, read-only security scan of a remote MCP server before you connect it.' It then enumerates concrete actions (handshake, tool listing, capability ratings, prompt-injection detection, lethal-trifecta check), making the tool's function unambiguous even with no sibling tools to distinguish from.
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?
It explicitly states the trigger condition ('before you connect it') and adds a clear permission boundary ('Scan only servers you run or are entitled to connect to'). While there are no alternatives to compare against, this covers both when and under what conditions to invoke the tool.
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
scan_mcp_server
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
Security scanner for MCP servers. Detect vulnerabilities, prompt injection, and tool poisoning.
Scans remote MCP servers for protocol, security, and TLS issues; exposes scan tools via MCP.
2,000+ MCP servers read at source level. Know what one does before you connect. Free, no key.
Scan any MCP server for tool-poisoning, security, auth & license. Trust score before install.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceSecurity auditor for MCP servers that enumerates tools, resources, and prompts, scans for injection patterns, classifies risk levels, and produces a scored report (0-100, grades A-F).2MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityFmaintenanceScans MCP servers for security hardening issues including capability declarations, transport, and tool descriptions.1-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenancePassive security scanner that audits a running MCP server against the OWASP MCP Top 10 and grades it A-F. Read-only static analysis of the advertised tools, prompts and resources with console/JSON/SARIF output, and it also runs as an MCP server itself.85MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceScans MCP servers for security vulnerabilities, prompt injection, and tool poisoning, providing risk scores and protection.4MIT
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
There is only one tool, so no ambiguity or overlap exists. An agent cannot confuse it with anything else in the set.
The single tool name scan_mcp_server follows a clear verb_noun pattern and is internally consistent. There are no mixed conventions to create confusion.
The server's sole purpose is to perform a security scan, and one well-defined tool fully satisfies that purpose. Adding extra tools would be unnecessary bloat.
The tool covers the entire advertised workflow: handshake, tool listing, capability rating, prompt-injection detection, and the lethal-trifecta check. No obvious missing operation is needed for the stated domain.