Skip to main content
Glama

trust-oracle

by io.github.New1Direction

verify_before_execute

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe MCP server endpoint URL you are about to call.
freshNoForce a live re-probe instead of returning a recent cached grade (<6h).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

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.

All trust-oracle 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

A4.3/5.0
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.

Resources