Skip to main content
Glama

AINumbers Fintech Intelligence Suite

by co.ainumbers
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

MCP Developer Readiness Scorecard

score_mcp_readiness
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compute a composite MCP server ship-readiness score across tool definitions, server.json, OAuth, transport, tool poisoning, and spec compliance. Renders the interactive AINumbers tool as a widget; inputs are applied via the AIN Bridge and the tool runs client-side (zero PII, zero network). Output schema: call describe_tool("score_mcp_readiness").

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputsNoMap of tool input element IDs to values (see manifest input_schema). Applied via AIN Bridge prefill.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "overall": {
-      "type": "number"
-    },
-    "sections": {
-      "type": "array"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "overall": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "sections": {
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it renders as an interactive AINumbers widget, inputs are applied via the AIN Bridge, and it runs client-side with zero PII and zero network activity. This is meaningful transparency for an agent deciding whether invocation is safe and appropriate.

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 with no filler: purpose, execution behavior, and output-schema access. The most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded, and every sentence 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?

The description covers the composite scoring scope, client-side execution, data-safety properties, and directs the agent to describe_tool for the output schema. It is reasonably complete for an interactive widget tool, though it relies on an external describe_tool call and does not explain score semantics or input element details.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'inputs' map as element ID-to-value pairs applied via AIN Bridge prefill. The tool description mostly repeats this and adds that the tool runs client-side, but it does not meaningfully explain what particular inputs are expected or how they influence the score.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Compute a composite MCP server ship-readiness score' across concrete dimensions (tool definitions, server.json, OAuth, transport, tool poisoning, spec compliance). This is clear and informative, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely named siblings like score_mcp_server_readiness or run_mcp_deployability_diagnostic.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many similar MCP readiness/score siblings. The description states what the tool does and that it renders a widget, but offers no conditions, exclusions, or alternative suggestions.

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

All AINumbers Fintech Intelligence Suite toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources