meta-agent-tools

Check tool

check_tool

Read-onlyIdempotent

Before installing a remote MCP server, check its address: signals from the address itself (consumer tunnel, no TLS), the catalog listings with that address or host and their security level, and facts about its domain. Never visits the address. Send the endpoint URL. The answer never contacts that address: it reads what our weekly visits measured and what our domain data knows. sinais_do_endereco comes from the address alone (consumer tunnel, http:// without TLS). registros lists the catalog listings with this exact address first (exato: true), then up to 20 others on the same host, each with its level and signals; mesmo_host counts them all. dominio has the facts about the host's domain. An address outside the catalog answers no_catalogo: false and registrar: submit it to get it reviewed. Cached for 5 minutes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	The http(s) endpoint of the MCP server, without credentials.
`retry_key`	No	Optional retry key, up to 80 ASCII characters; same read for five minutes.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 15, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / api_pass

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "MAT-only private pass: mat_<32 random hex>_<64 random hex>. Generate and save before buying.",
-  "type": "string"
-}

AddedOct 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral value: it never contacts the address, results come from weekly measurements and cached domain data, and caching lasts 5 minutes. That is the kind of safety/performance context annotations cannot express.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the description is dense and partly redundant — "Never visits the address" is immediately re-stated as "The answer never contacts that address." Portuguese output keys (`sinais_do_endereco`, `registros`, `mesmo_host`, `dominio`) are introduced without translation, adding parsing load.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden and does describe the returned structure (address signals, catalog listings with `exato` flag, `mesmo_host` count, domain facts, `no_catalogo`/`registrar` fallback). A little more on the meaning of each signal would make it fully complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. "Send the endpoint URL" restates the required param and adds nothing on `retry_key` beyond what the schema says, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: checks a remote MCP server address before installation, aggregating address signals, catalog listings and domain facts. Clear and distinct from the listing-oriented siblings, though it never names an alternative tool to disambiguate further.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

"Before installing a remote MCP server, check its address" gives an explicit trigger condition, and the no-catalog case tells the agent what to do next (submit via `registrar`). No sibling alternative is named, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All meta-agent-tools tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?