Skip to main content
Glama

Hermes Plant — Agent Commerce Assurance

by io.github.JesseGdotIO

MCP Server Risk Analyzer

mcp_risk_score
Idempotent

MCP Server Risk Analyzer (x402-paid, $0.05): score an MCP server manifest for security risk before install — destructive tools, over-broad scopes, weak auth, egress — with per-tool findings and fixes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
payerNoOptional wallet/account identifier; stored only as a hash
toolsYesThe MCP server's tool manifest
apiKeyNoFree-tier / plan API key (hp_free_… or a pass key). Forwarded as X-API-Key so paid tools serve from your monthly quota with NO x402 wallet. Get a free key (250 calls/mo) at https://hermesplant.com/pricing.
serverNoServer name/URL
channelNoDiscovery channel or source tag
campaignNoCampaign tag for downstream telemetry
xPaymentNoRaw X-PAYMENT proof from an x402-compatible wallet/client
actorTypeNoCaller type for analytics: agent, human, synthetic, system, or unknown
authModelNoe.g. oauth, token, none
syntheticNoMark this paid retry as an internal test/probe for analytics exclusion
priorToolsNoPrior tool names to diff capability growth
paymentSignatureNox402 payment proof to forward as PAYMENT-SIGNATURE and X-PAYMENT on retry
paymentIdentifierNoOptional x402 payment identifier for idempotency/retry correlation

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesTrue when the upstream storefront call returned a 2xx response
httpStatusYesUpstream HTTP status code
paymentRequiredNoTrue when the response is an x402 HTTP 402 payment challenge

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the x402 payment requirement and cost ($0.05), as well as the return format ('per-tool findings and fixes'). It does not explain potential side effects beyond payment, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the tool's name, payment/cost, and core function. Every phrase earns its place; no filler or redundant information.

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 the tool's complexity (13 params, output schema, annotations), the description covers the essential usage scenario, pricing, and output highlights. It lacks an explicit mention of the input format (a manifest), but that is covered by the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, every parameter already has a detailed description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the payment model, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('score'), resource ('MCP server manifest'), and outcome ('security risk before install', 'with per-tool findings and fixes'). It also lists concrete risk dimensions (destructive tools, over-broad scopes, weak auth, egress), clearly distinguishing it from sibling scoring tools like score_destructguard_command or walletguard_score.

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 phrase 'before install' provides a clear temporal context for when to use this tool. It implies the alternative of analyzing a server post-install or using a different tool, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, which keeps it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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

All Hermes Plant — Agent Commerce Assurance 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes. Some overlap exists (e.g., dealanalyzer_analyze combines CashflowLens and WaterfallLens; action_safety_run includes DestructGuard evidence), but descriptions explicitly clarify scope so an agent can choose correctly.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming patterns are mixed: some verbs precede nouns (get_product, purchase_with_x402), others follow nouns (bond_analyze, portfolioguard_score), and some are multi-word (action_safety_quick_gate). This inconsistency makes tool selection less predictable.

Tool Count3/5

At 25 tools, the server is at the heavy end and spans diverse subdomains (safety, payments, financial analytics, storefront). While each tool serves a purpose, the broad scope makes it feel overloaded for a single server.

Completeness3/5

Core assurance workflows (safety, payment, verification) are covered, but gaps exist: no refund/cancellation tools, no attestation lookup, and no way to retrieve 30-day action-safety status records. Financial analytics also have limited coverage (no equities).

Resources