Skip to main content
Glama

registry

by com.policylayer

check_mcp_stack

Check a whole MCP stack against the PolicyLayer registry in one call — up to 25 servers, each given as candidate identifiers (npm package name, registry slug, or remote URL) tried in order until one resolves. Returns the published record for every hit — plus a deterministic verdict (attention signals and a suggested action) — and the lookup status for every miss; counts, grades and flagged tools come from the published records only. Costs one rate-limit unit per server.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
serversYesOne entry per server in the stack.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It transparently details candidate resolution order, return contents (records, verdict, status), and rate-limit cost, with 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single dense paragraph with no wasted sentences, though it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points). 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, description adequately explains return values (records, verdict, lookup status) and constraints. Lacks mention of error handling but is otherwise complete for the tool's complexity.

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% but description adds meaning: explains candidate types (npm, registry slug, URL), order tried, and the 'name' field as a label, significantly enriching the schema.

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 a whole MCP stack (multiple servers up to 25) against the PolicyLayer registry, returning records for hits and status for misses. It distinguishes from sibling 'check_mcp_server' which likely handles single servers.

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 implies batch usage for multiple servers and mentions rate-limit cost, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., 'use check_mcp_server for single servers').

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