Skip to main content
Glama

Moltline Agent Governance

by com.moltlinestudio

Audit Mcp Config

audit_mcp_config
Read-onlyIdempotent

Audit an MCP server config for risk-ranked posture findings. FREE.

Flags exposed machine credentials in the config, required inputs that aren't gated/optional, unpinned versions, over-broad env access, and dangerous auto-run flags. It never echoes any matched secret value back. Typical input {"config": "<mcpize.yaml, mcp.json, or a Claude/Cursor servers block>"} returns {"posture_score": 0-100, "verdict": "...", "findings": [{"line": N, "severity": 1-5, "issue": "...", "fix": "..."}], "note": "..."}.

Use on a server configuration document. Not for a skill or instruction file (audit_skill_file) and not for untrusted content an agent is about to read (injection_scan). Errors: on invalid, missing, or malformed input this tool never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": ""}. Every call is read-only and idempotent, so after correcting the input it is always safe to retry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
configYesThe MCP config to audit, pasted as text or JSON — mcpize.yaml, mcp.json, or a Claude/Cursor servers block.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds critical behavioral details: 'It never echoes any matched secret value back', it returns error objects instead of protocol errors, and every call is read-only and idempotent. These details are valuable for safe invocation and are not present in the annotations alone.

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 approximately 150 words, well-structured, and every sentence serves a purpose. It starts with the core action, lists what the tool checks, provides an input/output example, gives usage guidance, and ends with error behavior. No redundant or fluff content.

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 single parameter, the description fully covers input format, output structure, error handling, safety guarantees, and differentiates from related tools. The output schema is described in the text, and the annotations complement the behavioral aspects. It is complete and leaves no obvious gaps.

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?

The input schema already describes the parameter well (100% coverage). The description adds a concrete example of the typical input format and outlines the response structure, which helps the agent understand usage. While not essential, this extra context justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool audits an MCP server config for risk-ranked posture findings. It specifies what it flags (credentials, optional inputs, unpinned versions, etc.) and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like audit_skill_file and injection_scan. This makes the purpose distinct and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use ('Use on a server configuration document') and when not to ('Not for a skill or instruction file' and 'not for untrusted content'). It also explains error handling behavior and that retrying is safe after correcting input. This provides clear contextual guidance.

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