A
license-
qualityB
maintenanceA neutral, public danger grade for MCP servers that AI agents rely on, providing A-F grades and transparency signals to vet servers before connecting.
Last updated
MIT
trust-oracle
Server Details
Independent A-F trust grade for any MCP server, watched for drift. Free, never for sale.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- New1Direction/webmcp-anything
- GitHub Stars
- 5
- Server Listing
- web-mcp
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
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.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A4.3/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct concern: drift detection, grading, and pre-execution verification. Descriptions clearly differentiate their purposes with no overlap.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tools use consistent snake_case with verb_noun pattern (check_drift, grade_server), though 'verify_before_execute' uses a slightly longer verb_prep_noun form. Overall pattern is clear and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
Three tools is ideal for this focused server—each has a clear role without unnecessary complexity or missing essentials.
Completeness4/5
Covers the core trust verification workflow: drift detection, grading, and pre-execution gating. Minor gaps like a reset or history tool could exist but are not essential for primary use.
Available Tools
3 toolscheck_mcp_driftAInspect
Check whether an MCP server's tool definitions have changed since it was last trusted (rug-pull / schema-drift detection, the CVE-2025-54136 class). Returns how long the tool surface has been stable, how many times it has changed, and the last change. Use after approval to detect post-trust mutation.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The MCP server endpoint URL to check. |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (stability duration, change count, last change) and frames it as a safety check. It does not detail network behavior or error handling, but the core behavioral trait is well communicated.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and wastes no words. Every sentence adds value: purpose, what is returned, and when to use.
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 has one parameter (100% coverage) and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values. It covers purpose, usage, and result structure. It could mention prerequisites or error conditions, but it is fairly complete for a simple check tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema's parameter description ('The MCP server endpoint URL to check') without adding new meaning. No additional detail on format or constraints is provided.
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 uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('an MCP server's tool definitions'), clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It also references a known vulnerability class (CVE-2025-54136) to differentiate from sibling tools like grade_mcp_server or verify_before_execute.
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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use after approval to detect post-trust mutation.' This provides clear context for invocation. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for most agents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
grade_mcp_serverAInspect
Independently grade an MCP server (A–F) BEFORE connecting an agent to it. Returns spec-conformance, security (OWASP MCP Top 10), reliability, tool-hygiene and transparency sub-scores plus a connect/caution/avoid recommendation. Audited by wmcp.sh; the grade is free and never for sale.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The MCP server endpoint URL to grade (e.g. https://mcp.example.com/mcp). | |
| fresh | No | Force a live re-probe instead of returning a recent cached grade. |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return values (sub-scores and recommendation), mentions auditing by wmcp.sh, and states the grade is free. However, it does not detail side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits.
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 only two sentences long, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and then provides additional detail on outputs.
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, the description adequately explains return values. It covers spec-conformance, security, reliability, tool-hygiene, transparency sub-scores, and a recommendation. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced, and no annotations to lean on, so it's fairly 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter descriptions in the schema are already clear. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides for 'url' and 'fresh'.
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's purpose: 'Independently grade an MCP server (A–F) BEFORE connecting an agent to it.' It specifies the verb 'grade' and the resource 'MCP server', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'check_mcp_drift' and 'verify_before_execute' by focusing on grading.
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 indicates when to use the tool: 'BEFORE connecting an agent to it.' This provides clear context, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_before_executeAInspect
Verify an MCP server immediately BEFORE you execute any of its tools. Combines the continuously-watched trust grade and live drift status into a single connect/caution/avoid verdict (ok | caution | drifted | failing | ungraded), so you can gate the call in one step. Free, read-tier. The grade is independent and never for sale.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The MCP server endpoint URL you are about to call. | |
| fresh | No | Force a live re-probe instead of returning a recent cached grade (<6h). |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the tool is free, read-tier, the grade is independent, and returns one of five verdicts. Mentions fresh parameter for live re-probe. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; but for a read-only tool, this is sufficient.
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?
Description is 4 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds useful information. Could be slightly more concise but effective.
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 low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, verdict options, and key behaviors. Could mention verdict handling but still adequate.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds value: for 'url' it adds context 'you are about to call', and for 'fresh' it explains the cache age (<6h). This goes beyond 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 verifies an MCP server before executing its tools, combining trust grade and drift status into a verdict. It distinguishes from siblings check_mcp_drift and grade_mcp_server by offering a combined verdict.
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?
Explicit guidance to use before executing any tool, and describes the convenience of a single-step gate. However, it does not explicitly state when to use the siblings instead, though it is implied.
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!
Related MCP Servers
MCP Queen Registryofficial
AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceCrawls and grades MCP servers deterministically, providing a registry, leaderboard, and API to query server grades and submit feedback.Last updated7MIT- Alicense-qualityAmaintenanceBehavioral trust scoring for MCP servers and AI agents. Live registry tracking 4,500+ servers with trust scores (0-100) based on interaction history, success rates, and latencyLast updated2MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceMCP server exposing AgentForge Trust Score audit tools. Query trust, evaluate policies, list trusted servers, recommend with filter.Last updated4301MIT
Try in Browser
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.