mcp_security_reportState of MCP Security: how many audited MCP servers run an arbitrary install script, are abandoned, ship no repository or license — with day-over-day deltas and a sample of currently-flagged servers. From a daily audit of the MCP server catalog. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the data source (daily audit of MCP server catalog), the report contents (counts, deltas, samples), and that it is free. This exceeds the baseline and provides a clear behavioral picture without contradicting annotations.
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?
The description is two sentences, with the first sentence densely listing key metrics and the second providing the data source and cost. Every clause adds information, and there is no redundancy with annotations or schema. The structure is efficient and front-loaded.
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 no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining what the tool returns (counts, deltas, sample) and its provenance. However, it does not specify the exact return format (e.g., JSON structure) or any caveats about the daily audit. Still, it is sufficiently complete for an overview report tool with rich annotations.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The schema coverage is 100% (no properties), and the description appropriately focuses on the report content rather than parameters, earning the baseline of 4.
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 that the tool provides a state of MCP security, detailing specific metrics (arbitrary install scripts, abandonment, missing repository/license) and outputs (day-over-day deltas, sample of flagged servers). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on x402 endpoints, pulsefeed products, etc.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool (when wanting an overview of MCP security) and notes it's from a daily audit, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The context and sibling names suggest a comparison tool (mcp_check_server) exists, but no direct guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct data or actions, but x402_working_services and x402_leaderboard both list services ranked by trust score, and x402_changes vs x402_incidents both cover ecosystem changes. Descriptions help differentiate them, so only minor confusion is possible.
Naming is mixed: some tools use a verb_noun pattern (check_x402_endpoint, mcp_check_server), while most use noun phrases (x402_incidents, pulsefeed_products). The consistent x402_/mcp_/pulsefeed_ prefixes add some structure, but the overall pattern is inconsistent.
Ten tools is well within the ideal range for a domain-specific data/audit server. Each tool covers a distinct facet (endpoint safety, ecosystem stats, MCP audits, product listings), and none feel redundant or out of place.
The set covers endpoint checking, incident feeds, leaderboards, stats, change history, MCP security, and product info. A minor gap is the lack of a per-endpoint full historical record beyond the check verdict, but the available tools serve the core use cases well.