Skip to main content
Glama

Server Details

Free, read-only security scanner for remote MCP servers, before you connect them.

If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL

Available Tools

1 tool
scan_mcp_serverScan an MCP server for security risksA
Read-only
Inspect

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.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe https:// URL of the remote MCP server to scan

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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. 1 tool update
    • First observedscan_mcp_server

Frequently Asked Questions

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Security 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).
    2
    MIT
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Passive 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.
    85
    MIT
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Scans MCP servers for security vulnerabilities, prompt injection, and tool poisoning, providing risk scores and protection.
    4
    MIT
Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

There is only one tool, so no ambiguity or overlap exists. An agent cannot confuse it with anything else in the set.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count5/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Resources