nittim

Audit a GitHub Repository

audit_repo

Paid nittim AI audit (credits, human confirm). One structured pass over the repository's highest-signal source; the report states what it read. The only tool that produces scores and a verdict. This call returns the audit's id — no report, no scores, no verdict in this answer. THE ONE EXCEPTION: a commit already audited under this account is returned directly, as the finished report, with no id and no charge. TIERS: defaults to Audit; fullScan: true buys the wider Full Audit tier, priced by pass count. BYOK: this tool always runs on nittim's key and is charged in credits — the report is finalized after your call ends, so a key sent in the x-nittim-anthropic-key header cannot be honoured here, and a call carrying one is refused rather than charged. NEEDS A KEY: mint one at https://nittim.com/keys. COSTS MONEY: the first call only returns a price quote and runs nothing. A second call, with confirmedCost set to that exact price, runs it — a key that is not marked autonomous also needs the account owner's own approval before that second call runs.DELIVERED AS A BATCH: this call returns the audit's id immediately — nothing runs inside the call. The report lands Usually within 15 minutes*. * Most reports land within 15 minutes. Worst case, 24 hours.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repoUrl`	Yes	GitHub repository URL or owner/repo string, e.g. https://github.com/owner/repo or owner/repo. Private repos require a githubToken.
`fullScan`	No	True buys the wider Full Audit tier instead of the default Audit: every eligible source file, priced by pass count.
`payInstead`	No	True runs for credits immediately instead of queuing, skipping the covered (Audit) entitlement even when it would otherwise be free — for when the account owner has chosen to pay rather than wait for the daily free-audit budget to reopen.
`deployedUrl`	No	Optional URL of this repository's live deployment, intended for a URL the account owner actually operates. When set, the audit also runs one bounded, READ-ONLY fetch pass against that origin — the page itself plus a handful of GET requests for static files the repo also contains (e.g. /robots.txt) — and reports observed drift between the deployed artifact and the audited commit on the report. Nothing else is ever fetched, redirects are never followed, and private/internal addresses are refused.
`githubToken`	No	Optional GitHub personal access token (read-only) for private repos. If omitted, only public repos are accessible.
`authorization`	No	HUMAN CONFIRMATION. Omit until the account owner has pressed Confirm on the link a paid tool answered with; then set to that answer's `authorization` id (single-use, short TTL). Protocol: server instructions.
`confirmedCost`	No	COST CONFIRMATION. Omit on the first call (it only quotes); then set to the exact `cost` object quoted. A moved price is re-quoted, never charged. Protocol: server instructions.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

AddedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Exceptionally transparent. The description discloses the async delivery model (returns id immediately, nothing runs inside the call), the two-step billing protocol (first call quotes and runs nothing; second call charges), the no-BYOK refusal behavior, the already-audited exception with no charge, human-approval requirements, and worst-case delivery time. All of this goes far beyond the annotations, and none of it contradicts them — readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false are all consistent with a paid, externally-fetching, non-idempotent audit tool.

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 description is front-loaded with the most important facts and uses ALL-CAPS section headers as useful signposts. But it is notably verbose and repetitive: the 'returns the audit's id, nothing runs inside the call' fact appears twice (main body and DELIVERED AS A BATCH), and the delivery-time claim is stated three times ('usually within 15 minutes', 'Most reports land within 15 minutes', 'Worst case, 24 hours'). The asterisk footnote adds no information.

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?

For a very complex tool — 7 parameters, nested confirmedCost object, two-call billing protocol, async delivery, exception path, and no output schema — the description covers an exceptional amount: cost, timing, key policy, human confirmation, tier selection, and the audit's scope. The main gap is that no output schema exists and the description never specifies the exact shape of the quote response the agent needs to copy into confirmedCost, nor does it point to get_audit as the retrieval path for the finished report.

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%, so the baseline is 3 — every parameter already carries a solid schema description (deployedUrl's security constraints, payInstead's free-budget logic, githubToken's private-repo purpose). The description adds genuine value on top by supplying the temporal protocol that gives confirmedCost, authorization, and fullScan their meaning: quote first, confirm with the exact quoted cost, and the call is refused if a key header is sent. This elevates parameter semantics above the baseline.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('one structured pass over the repository's highest-signal source') and delivers the defining trait: this is the only tool that produces scores and a verdict, which cleanly separates it from siblings like estimate_audit, get_audit, and scan_source. It also manages expectations about what this call returns (an id, not a report), which sharpens the purpose further.

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?

The description gives strong context: when to expect a finished report (already-audited commits), when to buy the Full tier (fullScan=true), and the mandatory two-call quote-then-confirm protocol. However, it never explicitly names sibling alternatives and the conditions that route to them — e.g., 'use get_audit to retrieve the report' or 'use estimate_audit for a quote without running.' 'The only tool that produces scores and a verdict' is an implicit differentiator, not an explicit routing rule.

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

All nittim tools Inspect

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

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools map to distinct workflow stages: estimate, preview, submit audit, retrieve audit, run module, dispute finding, and judge output. The closest pairs are audit_repo vs audit_source and scan_source vs run_module, but the descriptions provide enough boundary detail for an agent to choose correctly.

Naming Consistency5/5

Every tool follows the same snake_case verb_noun pattern: audit_repo, audit_source, estimate_audit, get_audit, list_modules, run_module, scan_source, and so on. There is no mixing of naming conventions or vague standalone verbs.

Tool Count5/5

11 tools is well-scoped for a paid AI audit service with async delivery, approval flows, and both repo-based and source-based inputs. Each tool covers a distinct step in the audit pipeline without feeling redundant or bloated.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is covered: estimate cost, submit audits, run single modules, check status, retrieve results, and dispute findings. Minor gaps include no way to list past audits, cancel a pending audit, or manage credits directly, though estimate_audit does show the balance.

Resources

Need Help?