Skip to main content
Glama

registry

by com.policylayer

check_mcp_server

Check an MCP server against the PolicyLayer registry BEFORE installing or allowing it. Accepts a registry slug, an npm package name (scoped or not), a remote server URL (https://…), or a server name. Returns the full published record: identity verification with its evidence, risk grade, auth posture, freshness, and the tool surface listed riskiest-first. A server the registry does not know is queued for scanning by this very call — check back shortly.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
serverYesRegistry slug, npm package name (e.g. @acme/mcp-server), remote URL, or server name.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of disclosure. It details the returned record fields (identity verification, risk grade, auth posture, freshness, tool surface riskiest-first) and reveals side-effect behavior: unknown servers are queued for scanning by the call itself, requiring re-check. No contradictions.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose and inputs, followed by return details and behavioral note. No fluff, every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema and one parameter, the description adequately explains inputs, outputs, and post-call behavior. It covers the workflow and edge case (unknown server). Minor gap: could mention possible error conditions.

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 coverage is 100%; the description adds context (e.g., '@acme/mcp-server' example) and purpose but does not significantly extend beyond the schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 checks an MCP server against the PolicyLayer registry, specifies accepted input formats (slug, npm package, URL, name), and distinguishes from sibling tools (check_mcp_stack, check_tool) by focusing on a single server.

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 explicitly says to use this tool 'BEFORE installing or allowing' a server, providing strong usage context. It also mentions that unknown servers are queued for scanning and to check back, which guides follow-up actions. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios where alternative tools (e.g., check_mcp_stack) would be preferred, though sibling names imply differentiation.

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

All registry 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct and clearly separated purpose: checking single servers, batch checking multiple servers, checking a specific tool on a server, accessing change events, and searching the registry. No overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: check_mcp_server, check_mcp_stack, check_tool, get_change_events, search_registry. The verb 'check' is used for three tools but the nouns differentiate them clearly.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for a registry server. It covers the essential operations (search, single check, batch check, tool-level check, change feed) without being overwhelming or too sparse.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core functionality of registry lookup and checking. While there is no explicit 'register' tool, the check_mcp_server tool implicitly queues unknown servers. Minor gap: no dedicated tool to list all servers or get a single server's summary without a search.

Resources