WORKS Public Verifier
Server Details
Independent static verification for exact immutable public GitHub commits.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- DYZCODE/works-plugins
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct role: eligibility is a preflight, contract_lint returns contract details, verify performs verification. No overlap; clear workflow guidance in descriptions.
All tools start with 'works_public_' but mix verb and noun forms ('eligibility' is a noun, others are verb phrases). Mostly consistent with minor deviation.
Three tools is well-scoped for a public repository verification server, covering preflight, contract retrieval, and verification without bloat.
Core workflow is covered, but there's no tool to list supported contracts or claims. Minor gap but doesn't break the main flow.
Available Tools
3 toolsworks_public_contract_lintInspect public WORKS contractARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
After a task is already known to have a public GitHub repository, an exact lowercase 40-character commit SHA, and a matching supported static claim, return the pinned contract digest and scope. Do not call for mutable or abbreviated refs, local or private repositories, runtime, builds, tests, deployments, or broad production-readiness claims.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contract | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | |
| title | Yes | |
| trust | Yes | |
| valid | Yes | |
| digest | Yes | |
| execution | Yes | |
| description | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context about prerequisites and restrictions, which complements the annotations without contradiction.
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?
One sentence that packs a lot of information. Could be slightly more concise but is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action.
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 good annotations and an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers prerequisites and exclusions. However, it omits any mention of the output format or link between contract parameter and return values, which would improve completeness.
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?
The description does not explain the meaning of the two enum values for 'contract' (node-package, env-safety). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to clarify what each option returns or how it affects behavior.
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?
Describes exactly what the tool does (return pinned contract digest and scope) and specifies the necessary preconditions. It distinguishes itself from siblings by listing when not to call it, e.g., for mutable refs or private repos.
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?
Explicitly states when to use (after public repo, exact commit SHA, matching static claim) and when not to use (mutable refs, private repos, runtime, etc.). This is a model of usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
works_public_eligibilityCheck WORKS verification eligibilityARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Fast deterministic preflight for tool-only clients. Call this before any other WORKS tool when eligibility is uncertain, especially for mutable or abbreviated refs, local or private repositories, and build, test, runtime, deployment, or production claims. It does not download a repository or persist data. If eligible is false, stop without calling verification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claim | Yes | Use static-evidence for generic signed or static repository evidence; it maps conservatively to node-package. Never use it for build, tests, runtime, deployment, or production claims. | |
| reference | No | Reference exactly as supplied; never expand a branch, tag, or short SHA. | |
| source_kind | Yes | Classify where the requested source lives. | |
| repository_url | No | Exact repository URL supplied by the user, if any. | |
| repository_visibility | Yes | Use public only when the request identifies a public repository. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | |
| report | Yes | |
| contract | Yes | |
| eligible | Yes | |
| next_tool | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds key behavior beyond annotations: 'does not download a repository or persist data'. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so no contradiction.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with key purpose, no wasted words.
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?
Given 5 parameters and output schema, description covers purpose, usage, and behavior. Could mention error handling or response shape, but output schema likely handles that.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond what schema already provides.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'check eligibility', resource 'WORKS verification', and distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'call before any other WORKS tool'.
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?
Explicitly says when to use (when eligibility is uncertain, especially for mutable/abbreviated refs, local/private repos, and various claim types) and when to stop (if eligible is false).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
works_verify_public_repositoryVerify immutable public repositoryARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Use only after works_public_eligibility returns eligible. Download that immutable public GitHub snapshot, run the selected pinned static contract without executing repository commands, and return a signed receipt. Return the report field verbatim and stop.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contract | Yes | ||
| commit_sha | Yes | ||
| repository_url | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| trust | Yes | |
| report | Yes | |
| source | Yes | |
| status | Yes | |
| receipt | Yes | |
| contract | Yes | |
| outcomes | Yes | |
| limitations | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that it runs a static contract without executing repository commands and returns a signed receipt, providing valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with prerequisite. Each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more structured but efficient.
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 output schema present, description doesn't need to detail return format. It covers prerequisite, process, and return behavior ('signed receipt', 'report field verbatim'). Adequate for the complexity.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description should explain parameters, but it does not explicitly define contract, repository_url, or commit_sha. It implies them via 'snapshot' and 'pinned static contract' but lacks direct clarification.
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 clearly states it verifies an immutable public repository by downloading a snapshot and running a static contract. It explicitly references sibling tool works_public_eligibility as a prerequisite, differentiating from siblings.
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?
It explicitly says 'Use only after works_public_eligibility returns eligible,' providing a clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the prerequisite is sufficient for most scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
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
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!