Compliance & security scan for your app: secrets, exposed files, headers, privacy, AI-disclosure.
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.
Average 4/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: retrieving rules vs jurisdictions vs scan results vs triggering scans vs verification. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun (snake_case) pattern: get_, list_, register_, scan_, verify_. Conventions are uniform throughout.
9 tools cover the essential operations for compliance scanning: registration, scanning (full and quick), results retrieval, history, and verification. The scope feels well-calibrated.
Core CRUD-like coverage is present: register, scan, read results, verify. Missing update/delete for apps or scans is a minor gap but not critical for the domain's primary workflow.
get_compliance_rulesGet sourced compliance rule snapshotsAFetch LaunchTrust's sourced, founder-reviewed compliance rule snapshots, optionally filtered to one jurisdiction code (e.g. eu-ai-act-50, gdpr, ca-sb243). Compliance aid, not legal advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jurisdiction | No | Optional jurisdiction code to filter by, e.g. gdpr or eu-ai-act-50. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds context ('sourced, founder-reviewed' and 'Compliance aid, not legal advice'), providing mild behavioral insight without contradicting 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 sentences with front-loaded action and result. Every word serves a purpose; no fluff. Highly efficient.
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?
The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema). The description covers the source and nature of the data, plus a disclaimer. It is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's role and safe use. However, it could mention that the output is a list of snapshots (implied but not explicit).
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 parameter is fully documented. The description adds examples ('eu-ai-act-50, gdpr') echoing the schema's examples, providing marginal additional context. 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's action ('Fetch') and resource ('compliance rule snapshots'), with optional jurisdiction filtering. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_jurisdictions' (listing codes) and 'get_market_report' (market data), establishing a unique purpose.
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 implies when to use the tool (to get compliance rules) and the filter option, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives among siblings. For example, it doesn't mention that 'list_jurisdictions' is for getting available codes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_market_reportGet a market-annotated compliance reportAGet the latest scan for one of your registered apps, with each finding annotated by the jurisdictions and rules applicable to that app's target markets. Requires a LaunchTrust token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | The id of a registered app. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by disclosing the authentication requirement (LaunchTrust token) and that it returns the latest scan, which is beyond what annotations provide.
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 wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the token requirement is appended succinctly. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
With one parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description sufficiently explains the tool's function and prerequisite. It could mention the output format or emphasize that it returns annotated findings, but it's nearly complete for a simple 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 a description for app_id. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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 gets the latest scan for a registered app with market-annotated findings. It uses specific verb+resource and naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like get_scan_history (history) or list_jurisdictions (jurisdictions).
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 mentions the prerequisite (LaunchTrust token) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tool differentiation is only implicit through the description's focus on market annotations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_scan_historyGet scan history for an appAList recent scans (summary + findings) for one of your registered apps. Requires a LaunchTrust token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | The id of a registered app. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the authentication requirement (token) but does not disclose pagination, result limits, or ordering behavior. It provides some value beyond annotations but lacks depth.
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, no wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second states prerequisite. Highly efficient and front-loaded.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the core purpose and a key prerequisite. However, it omits details like default page size, result limit, or whether the list is chronological, leaving some uncertainty for the agent.
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 the app_id parameter. The description adds context ('for one of your registered apps') but repeats what the schema says ('The id of a registered app'). With full schema coverage, baseline is 3.
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 verb 'List', the resource 'recent scans (summary + findings)', and the scope 'for one of your registered apps'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_my_apps' (lists apps) and 'scan_app' (starts a scan), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires a LaunchTrust token') but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_compliance_rules' or 'list_my_apps'. Usage context is implied but not clearly articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_jurisdictionsList compliance jurisdictions coveredAList the jurisdictions and categories LaunchTrust tracks (e.g. EU AI Act, GDPR, US state privacy laws, app-store policies). Public coverage registry. Compliance aid, not legal advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal safe read-only behavior; description adds context about being a public registry and disclaims legal advice, enhancing transparency.
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, no wasted words, key information front-loaded.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, description adequately completes the context for a simple listing 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?
No parameters exist, so baseline is 4; description does not need to add param info.
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?
Description clearly states the tool lists jurisdictions and categories with concrete examples, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_compliance_rules or get_market_report.
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?
Implies use for exploring tracked jurisdictions but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_my_appsList your registered appsAList the apps registered in your LaunchTrust account, with each one's latest scan status. Requires a LaunchTrust token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the authentication requirement ('Requires a LaunchTrust token') beyond the annotations. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description provides useful context without 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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the token requirement is added as a brief second sentence. Every sentence serves a 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?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and a key requirement. It explains what is returned (list with latest scan status), though the exact structure is omitted. This is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. No parameter information is needed, and the description does not need to compensate.
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 verb 'List' and the resource 'apps registered in your LaunchTrust account', and adds specific detail about including the latest scan status. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_jurisdictions.
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 mentions a prerequisite (LaunchTrust token) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like list_jurisdictions exist, but no differentiation or usage context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
register_appRegister an app to monitorARegister a web URL in your LaunchTrust account so it can be fully scanned and monitored. Idempotent — if the URL is already registered, returns the existing app. Requires a LaunchTrust token and an active subscription.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public https URL of the app to register. | |
| name | No | Optional label (defaults to the hostname). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining the idempotency behavior (returns existing app) and the token/subscription requirement, which are beyond the 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 sentences only, with the first stating the main action and the second covering idempotency and requirements. No wasted 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?
For a simple registration tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, idempotency, and prerequisites. It could mention the return format explicitly, but 'returns the existing app' is sufficient.
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 covers both parameters with 100% description coverage. The description does not add new information beyond the schema (e.g., the 'name' default is already in the schema). Thus, baseline 3 applies.
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 verb 'register', the resource 'web URL', and the purpose 'so it can be fully scanned and monitored'. It also notes idempotency. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'scan_url' or 'list_my_apps'.
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 mentions prerequisites ('LaunchTrust token and an active subscription') and the idempotent behavior. While it implies registration is a precursor to scanning, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scan_app' or 'get_scan_history'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
scan_appRun a full signed scan on a registered appAInspectRun the full LaunchTrust scan on one of your registered apps and store a signed, dated evidence record. Requires a LaunchTrust token and an active subscription. Limited to 5 scans per app per day.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | The id of a registered app (see list_my_apps or register_app). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses mutation behavior (stores a record) and adds useful context beyond annotations, such as the daily rate limit and token requirement. Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, so no 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 concise sentences cover the action, outcome, prerequisites, and limits. No fluff, every sentence is informative.
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?
For a simple single-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, requirements, and constraints. Lacks details on return value but is still adequate for an agent.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, with the property description referencing how to obtain the app_id. The tool description does not need to add more, 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 specific action ('run the full LaunchTrust scan'), the target resource ('one of your registered apps'), and the outcome ('store a signed, dated evidence record'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'scan_url' and 'get_scan_history'.
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 mentions prerequisites ('requires a LaunchTrust token and an active subscription') and a rate limit ('limited to 5 scans per app per day'). While it does not directly compare to alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
scan_urlFree compliance + security quick-scanARun a FREE LaunchTrust compliance + security quick-scan on a public web URL. Returns a focused SUBSET of checks — leaked frontend secrets/API keys, exposed .env//.git, security headers, HTTPS/HSTS, missing privacy/terms pages, trackers/cookie banner, and AI-interaction disclosure. The result is unsigned and not stored. The full 27-detector signed, dated, continuously-monitored scan requires a LaunchTrust account. Compliance aid, not legal advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public http(s) URL to scan, e.g. https://example.com |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that the tool is free, returns a subset of checks, results are unsigned and not stored, and is compliance aid not legal advice. Adds value beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) by specifying behavioral traits.
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, front-loaded with purpose and key details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, behavioral traits, and limitations. Lacks error handling or response format, but acceptable for a quick-scan 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 a well-described 'url' parameter. Description adds no additional parameter-level details, but provides context about the scan scope. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the job.
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?
Clearly states the tool performs a free compliance and security quick-scan on a public web URL, listing specific checks. Distinguishes from sibling tools like scan_app and get_compliance_rules by focusing on quick-scan functionality.
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?
Implies usage for quick checks versus a full scan requiring an account. Notes that the result is unsigned and not stored, guiding expectations. Does not explicitly contrast with all siblings, but provides context for when to use this free offering.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_recordVerify a LaunchTrust signed recordAIndependently verify the ECDSA (ES256) signature on a LaunchTrust signed scan/disclosure record against the published public key. Pass the record JSON (the downloaded record, or an object containing canonical and signature).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| record | Yes | The LaunchTrust signed record JSON (or an object with `canonical` + `signature`). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds that it verifies against the 'published public key' and specifies the expected input structure, providing context beyond annotations 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?
Exactly two sentences, minimal and effective. First sentence gives purpose, second gives usage. No wasted 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?
Missing crucial information about what the output/return value is (e.g., boolean, status, error). Since there is no output schema, the description should indicate verification result format. Also does not mention potential errors (e.g., signature mismatch, invalid public key). Incomplete for a verification 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% and schema description already details the 'record' parameter as 'The LaunchTrust signed record JSON...'. The description essentially repeats the same info, adding no new meaning. 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 'verify the ECDSA (ES256) signature on a LaunchTrust signed scan/disclosure record', specifying verb, resource, and algorithm. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are about listing, scanning, or registering, not verification.
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 says 'Pass the record JSON' and gives shape, which implies when to use: when you have a record to verify. But it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if you need to retrieve a record first) or name alternatives like get_scan_history. Usage context is implied but not thorough.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.