Free deterministic security scan of public git repos: OSV.dev vulnerable deps, secrets, config lint.
Describe Project Feldspar's paid code audit (security, correctness, maintainability; three independent review passes plus consolidation and manual verification of every reported file:line), its price, turnaround, and the Stripe checkout URL. No arguments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what information will be returned—audit scope, process, price, turnaround, and checkout URL—and explicitly notes that the tool takes no arguments.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose before expanding on useful detail. The parenthetical explanation of the audit process is compact, and the closing 'No arguments' prevents an unnecessary invocation attempt. There is no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-argument informational tool, the description adequately covers what the reply will contain: audit scope and process, price, turnaround, and the Stripe checkout URL. No output schema exists, so this content list is the necessary return-value documentation, and it is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and the schema already reflects that with an empty properties object and additionalProperties:false. The description's 'No arguments' is a helpful confirmation, and with no parameters to document there is little semantic burden for the description to carry.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses an explicit verb, 'Describe', and names a concrete resource: Project Feldspar's paid code audit, including deliverables such as scope, price, turnaround, and Stripe checkout URL. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling scan_repository, which would presumably perform a scan rather than explain pricing and ordering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer this tool is for obtaining audit details and how to order, but there is no explicit 'use this when you need pricing/checkout information' or any direct contrast with scan_repository. It relies on implication rather than giving conditions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Clone a public git repository and run feldspar-scan: OSV.dev advisories for pinned dependencies in lockfiles (npm, pnpm, yarn, pip/uv/poetry, Cargo, Go, Gemfile.lock, composer), secret patterns with redacted evidence, and configuration lint. Returns a JSON report with summary counts and per-finding severity, file, line, advisory id and fixed versions. Deterministic, no LLM involved. Takes 2-90 s depending on repository size.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | https://github.com/owner/repo (also gitlab.com, codeberg.org, bitbucket.org) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnly/hint annotations, the description discloses useful behavioral traits: it clones the repository, takes 2-90s, is deterministic with no LLM involvement, and redacts secret evidence. This gives an agent realistic expectations for side effects, latency, and output handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four tight sentences front-load the core action, then pack the scan categories, return format, execution guarantees, and latency without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description appropriately explains the JSON report's structure and key finding fields. Combined with the URL format, lockfile support, and latency range, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret the result correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is only one parameter and the input schema already describes the URL format and supported hosts at 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond echoing public repository scope.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb phrase: 'Clone a public git repository and run feldspar-scan', and enumerates the three scan categories plus return format. This clearly differentiates scan_repository from the only sibling audit_pricing, which is about pricing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly scopes usage to public git repositories and lists supported hosts, while the deterministic/no-LLM note helps an agent decide when this scan is appropriate. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the sibling is unrelated (audit_pricing), so the intended context is evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
audit_pricingscan_repositoryClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Generate SBOMs, scan vulnerabilities, and analyze dependencies from local projects or Git repos.
Audit GitHub repos for malicious and supply-chain code before you depend on them.
Screens public GitHub repos and PRs to generate risk maps, findings, and merge-readiness signals.
Deep security scans of repos you own from your editor: dependency CVEs, SAST, git-history secrets.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: scan_repository performs the actual security scan, while audit_pricing provides pricing and checkout information for the paid audit. There is no realistic risk of selecting the wrong tool.
Both tool names follow the same verb_noun snake_case convention: scan_repository and audit_pricing. The pattern is clear and predictable, even though one is an action and the other is more of an informational query.
With exactly two tools, the server feels minimal but not bloated. The core scan tool and the pricing information tool are both useful, but the surface is thin enough to be borderline.
For a stateless free repository security scan service, scan_repository fully covers the core workflow: clone, scan, and return structured findings. audit_pricing provides the related paid offering without leaving a dead end since it includes a checkout URL. No obvious missing operations exist for the stated scope.
