meta-agent-tools

Listing security

listing_security

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read a remote MCP server or SKILL.md review before installing. MCP: server, domain, tools and measured signals. Skill: static findings with file, line, excerpt and context; no command execution or referenced-script review. Unread skills stay unchecked. Read the limits in aviso. Take the id from list_listings. We visit remote MCP servers: initialize and tools/list, without credentials or tool calls, again 7 days after a success. A failure needs a second check. MCP signals: dns_morto, sem_https, tls_invalido, tunel, nao_responde, nao_mcp, texto_suspeito, redireciona_fora, repo_arquivado, repo_parado, dominio_recente, login, bloqueado. For skills, tipo: skill identifies a static SKILL.md review. It flags secret reads, download-and-execute commands, external uploads, invisible characters, long encoded text and broad allowed-tools. revisao.achados supplies the path, original line, excerpt and context. Examples and prohibitions do not raise the level. Excerpts hide sensitive values. The review does not run commands or follow references. Supported source: public raw.githubusercontent.com SKILL.md. Watched, visited, starred and new skills get priority within the shared GitHub governor and a daily cap. Unread or unsupported skills remain explicitly unchecked. Local MCP servers and plugins answer nao_remoto. No request fetches a third-party source. Cached for 5 minutes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Listing ID, from `Anuncio.id`.
`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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Far exceeds the annotations: no credentials or tool calls, re-visit 7 days after a success, second check on failure, 5-minute cache, no third-party fetches, excerpts hide sensitive values, and the review never executes commands or follows references. The full operational profile is disclosed.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded, but the body is an undifferentiated wall of text mixing prose with an inline enum dump (dns_morto, sem_https, ...) and untranslated terms (aviso, revisao.achados, nao_remoto). Several clauses earn their place, but the structure forces the agent to parse dense signal lists inline.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates fully: it names what MCP results contain (server, domain, tools, measured signals), what skill findings contain (path, line, excerpt, context), and enumerates the unchecked cases. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description still adds value: it clarifies the id's provenance (list_listings) and ties the retry_key window to the 'same read for five minutes' caching behavior. Minor addition, but real.

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 and resource: 'Read a remote MCP server or SKILL.md review before installing,' and splits the two review modes (MCP vs. skill). It is clearly distinct from get_listing/listing_status in intent, though it never names a sibling explicitly to route the agent.

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?

Gives clear context ('before installing'), an explicit when-not ('Local MCP servers and plugins answer nao_remoto'), and tells the agent where the id comes from ('Take the id from list_listings'). No named alternative tool for adjacent tasks, so not 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?