Skip to main content
Glama

MCP handshake census snapshot

mcp_trust
Read-onlyIdempotent

GET the latest MCP handshake trust snapshot (https://councilof.ai/interop/mcp-trust/latest.json): counts of how many internet-facing MCP servers answer a correct initialize handshake, how many respond with an auth challenge, and how many are unreachable. Counts only by doctrine — host details withheld by design. A partial round or a cap change is disclosed in the snapshot. Measurement, never certification. Three states: VALID (fetched), UNREACHABLE (could not fetch), UNCHECKABLE (body unreadable).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
diffNo
kindNo
as_ofNo
stateYesVALID or UNREACHABLE
countsNo
sourceNo
partialNotrue whenever the enumeration did not complete — a cap-limited read is partial
headlineNo
enumerationNo
partial_reasonNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed11 schema fields changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / as_of / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
      +  "string",
      +  "null"
      +]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / counts / type
      Previous value: -"object"New value: +[
      +  "object",
      +  "null"
      +]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / diff
      Added value: +{}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / enumeration / type
      Previous value: -"object"New value: +[
      +  "object",
      +  "null"
      +]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / headline
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": [
      +    "string",
      +    "null"
      +  ]
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / kind
      Added value: +{}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / partial / description
      Added value: +"true whenever the enumeration did not complete — a cap-limited read is partial"
    • addedOutput schema / properties / partial_reason
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": [
      +    "string",
      +    "null"
      +  ]
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / source
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / state
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "VALID or UNREACHABLE",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / required
      Added value: +[
      +  "state"
      +]
  2. Changed11 schema fields changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / as_of / type
      Previous value: -[
      -  "string",
      -  "null"
      -]New value: +"string"
    • changedOutput schema / properties / counts / type
      Previous value: -[
      -  "object",
      -  "null"
      -]New value: +"object"
    • removedOutput schema / properties / diff
      Removed value: -{}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / enumeration / type
      Previous value: -[
      -  "object",
      -  "null"
      -]New value: +"object"
    • removedOutput schema / properties / headline
      Removed value: -{
      -  "type": [
      -    "string",
      -    "null"
      -  ]
      -}
    • removedOutput schema / properties / kind
      Removed value: -{}
    • removedOutput schema / properties / partial / description
      Removed value: -"true whenever the enumeration did not complete — a cap-limited read is partial"
    • removedOutput schema / properties / partial_reason
      Removed value: -{
      -  "type": [
      -    "string",
      -    "null"
      -  ]
      -}
    • removedOutput schema / properties / source
      Removed value: -{
      -  "type": "string"
      -}
    • removedOutput schema / properties / state
      Removed value: -{
      -  "description": "VALID or UNREACHABLE",
      -  "type": "string"
      -}
    • removedOutput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
      -  "state"
      -]
  3. Changed11 schema fields changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / as_of / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
      +  "string",
      +  "null"
      +]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / counts / type
      Previous value: -"object"New value: +[
      +  "object",
      +  "null"
      +]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / diff
      Added value: +{}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / enumeration / type
      Previous value: -"object"New value: +[
      +  "object",
      +  "null"
      +]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / headline
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": [
      +    "string",
      +    "null"
      +  ]
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / kind
      Added value: +{}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / partial / description
      Added value: +"true whenever the enumeration did not complete — a cap-limited read is partial"
    • addedOutput schema / properties / partial_reason
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": [
      +    "string",
      +    "null"
      +  ]
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / source
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / state
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "VALID or UNREACHABLE",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / required
      Added value: +[
      +  "state"
      +]
  4. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: host details are withheld by design, partial rounds or cap changes are disclosed, it is measurement rather than certification, and the three possible states are defined. This is exactly the kind of transparency that helps an agent set expectations.

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 compact and front-loaded, leading with method, resource, and URL before moving to the counts. Every sentence earns its place: scope, privacy caveat, disclosure caveat, epistemic caveat, and state definitions are all conveyed without redundancy.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers all essential context: what is counted, how states are classified, what caveats exist, and what limits apply. Nothing needed to call it correctly or interpret its result is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond the baseline. Schema coverage is effectively 100% and the empty parameter object is self-explanatory.

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 ('GET'), a specific resource (the latest MCP handshake trust snapshot), and gives the exact URL. It then enumerates what the snapshot contains, so an agent knows unambiguously what this tool does and can tell it apart from related census-style siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description makes the tool's context clear: use it when you need internet-facing MCP handshake trust counts by doctrineches. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives like x402_trust, nor does it state any exclusions or fallback conditions.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources