CertScore.ai — Light mode
Server Details
No-account public website privacy risk scans with 20 new scans/day and free recent-result reuse.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- ergoveritas1-alt/certscore.ai
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: scan_site initiates scans, get_scan_status checks status, and get_scan_bundle retrieves results. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (scan_site, get_scan_status, get_scan_bundle), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With only three tools, the server feels minimal. While 'light mode' suggests a trimmed scope, the count is on the low end and may not fully cover typical scanning workflows.
The tools cover the basic lifecycle (start, check status, get results) but lack operations like cancel or delete scans. Minor gaps exist, but the core workflow is functional.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_scan_bundleGet compact CertScore scan bundleARead-onlyInspect
Recommended second call after scan_site. Returns the canonical scan state, compact report summary, findings, bounded evidence summary, and pre-consent inventory in one agent-friendly response.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scanId | Yes | Stable CertScore scan ID. | |
| maxFindings | No | Maximum compact findings to return. Defaults to 20. | |
| maxPreConsentRows | No | Maximum pre-consent inventory rows to return. Defaults to 20. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| noGo | No | |
| scan | Yes | |
| type | Yes | |
| links | No | |
| scanId | Yes | |
| status | Yes | |
| summary | No | |
| findings | Yes | |
| disclaimer | Yes | |
| evidenceSummary | No | |
| resultDisposition | No | |
| recommendedNextTool | Yes | |
| preConsentCookiesTrackers | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations by listing the returned data categories (scan state, report summary, findings, evidence, inventory). Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description complements rather than repeats. No contradictions.
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?
Two sentences with no redundant words. The most important usage guidance is front-loaded. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.
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?
Given the existence of an output schema (which likely documents return shapes in detail), the description provides a sufficient high-level overview. The tool has few parameters and clear context from annotations and siblings.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description does not add extra meaning or usage context for parameters beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool returns a compact scan bundle with specific components (scan state, report summary, findings, evidence, inventory) and explicitly distinguishes it as the recommended second call after scan_site, differentiating it from siblings.
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?
The description explicitly says 'Recommended second call after scan_site', providing clear sequential context and suggesting when to use this tool relative to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_scan_statusGet CertScore Pulse scan statusARead-onlyInspect
Retrieve terminal status, including completed_limited no-go disposition and reason-specific guidance. Pass jobId only before a stable scanId is available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | No | Pulse job ID for a just-created scan that has not yet returned a scanId. | |
| scanId | No | Preferred stable CertScore scan ID for API v2 scan status. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| noGo | No | |
| type | No | |
| error | No | |
| jobId | No | |
| domain | No | |
| scanId | No | |
| status | No | |
| scan_id | No | |
| startedAt | No | |
| completedAt | No | |
| scanTimeSeconds | No | |
| resultDisposition | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) by specifying the status includes 'completed_limited no-go disposition' and 'reason-specific guidance'. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two concise sentences: first defines purpose and content, second provides parameter guidance. No unnecessary words.
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?
Given an output schema exists, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (terminal status, specific dispositions, guidance). Complete for a status-checking tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying the usage relationship: 'Pass jobId only before a stable scanId is available,' which is not in the schema.
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 retrieves terminal status with specific details (completed_limited no-go disposition, reason-specific guidance). It distinguishes from siblings like get_scan_bundle and scan_site by focusing on status retrieval.
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?
Explicitly advises when to use jobId vs scanId: 'Pass jobId only before a stable scanId is available.' While it doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives, the context of siblings implies it's for checking scan status after initiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
scan_siteScan siteAInspect
Recommended first call. Starts or reuses a public-web scan, reports freshness and anonymous quota decisions, and waits up to 45 seconds by default. If still running, use get_scan_status; otherwise use get_scan_bundle. Completed no-go scans retain completed_limited status and reason-specific guidance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public URL or domain to scan. | |
| scanFrom | No | Optional scan execution context for newly queued scans. | |
| freshness | No | Use latest to reuse recent scans or refresh to request a new scan when eligible. | |
| maxWaitSeconds | No | Maximum time to wait before returning the still-running job. Defaults to 45 seconds; never turns an active scan into an error. | |
| waitForCompletion | No | Wait for a completed scan resource in this tool call. Defaults to true. Set false only for an explicitly asynchronous workflow. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| noGo | No | |
| type | Yes | |
| jobId | No | |
| domain | No | |
| scanId | No | |
| status | Yes | |
| scanFrom | No | |
| startedAt | No | |
| completedAt | No | |
| scanTimeSeconds | No | |
| resultDisposition | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds context beyond annotations: it reveals that the tool may wait up to 45 seconds, reports freshness and quota decisions, and handles no-go scans with a specific status. This complements the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) without contradiction.
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?
Two well-organized sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with key info: 'Recommended first call.' Immediately followed by what it does and then conditional routing.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 2 enums, output schema exists), the description covers the main flow: starting/reusing scans, waiting behavior, and follow-up actions. It does not need to explain the output schema since it is provided separately.
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?
Schema provides 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the waiting behavior related to maxWaitSeconds and waitForCompletion, and hints at the freshness parameter. It provides just enough extra context to interpret parameters.
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 'Recommended first call' and explains it starts or reuses a scan, reports freshness and quota decisions, and waits up to 45 seconds. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying when to use get_scan_status or get_scan_bundle.
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?
Explicitly calls it the 'Recommended first call' and provides context about what it does. It gives specific guidance on when to use alternatives: 'If still running, use get_scan_status; otherwise use get_scan_bundle.' Also addresses completed no-go scans.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
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
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!