Skip to main content
Glama

Moltline Agent Governance

by com.moltlinestudio

Agent Readiness Scan

agent_readiness_scan
Read-onlyIdempotent

Score a public domain against 21 agent-readiness checks. FREE.

Use when you need to know whether an autonomous agent can discover, read, use or pay a website - your own, or a vendor you are evaluating before recommending it. Typical input {"domain": "example.com"} returns {"score": 8, "total": 21, "grade": "F", "passed": [...], "failed": [{"title": "...", "detail": "...", "fix": "..."}], "report_url": "..."} where report_url is a permanent shareable page for the same result.

Not for auditing an MCP client configuration (audit_mcp_config) and not for scanning text for injection (injection_scan) - this one reaches out over the network and fetches public URLs on a live domain. Errors: on invalid, missing, or malformed input this tool never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": ""} (for example {"error": "The readiness scanner is not reachable right now."}). Every call is read-only and idempotent, so after correcting the input it is always safe to retry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesA public hostname such as example.com. A full URL is accepted and reduced to its host. Hostnames that resolve to private or internal addresses are refused.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces these with 'Every call is read-only and idempotent, so after correcting the input it is always safe to retry.' Additionally, it discloses the error behavior: 'never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": ...}'. This adds significant behavioral context 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise (four sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, usage scenario, exclusions, and error behavior. No redundant or extraneous information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear annotations, presence of output schema), the description covers everything needed: input format, output example, error handling, and safety guarantees. It is fully self-contained and leaves no important gaps.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'domain'. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that a full URL is accepted and reduced to its host, and that hostnames resolving to private/internal addresses are refused. This helps the agent correctly format input and anticipate validation failures.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a clear, specific verb+resource combination: 'Score a public domain against 21 agent-readiness checks.' It immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating what it is not for (audit_mcp_config, injection_scan). This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use when you need to know whether an autonomous agent can discover, read, use or pay a website.' It also gives clear negative examples ('Not for auditing an MCP client configuration... not for scanning text for injection') and includes retry safety advice, making it easy for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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

All Moltline Agent Governance toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

All eight tools target distinct governance concerns: domain readiness, config audit, skill audit, injection scanning, inventory, scope checking, policy generation, and persona loading. No two tools overlap in purpose, making selection unambiguous.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are consistently in snake_case and describe their function clearly. Minor inconsistency: most tools use a noun_verb or verb_noun pattern, but 'get_auditor_persona' uses a 'get_' prefix not seen elsewhere, and 'governance_policy' is noun_noun.

Tool Count5/5

With 8 tools, the server covers the core governance workflow without being overly broad or narrow. Each tool feels necessary, and the count is ideal for an MCP server focused on auditing, scanning, and policy generation.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is comprehensive for the domain: readiness scanning, config/script auditing, injection detection, inventory management, blast-radius scoring, policy generation, and persona standardization. There are no obvious missing operations for typical governance tasks.

Resources