Skip to main content
Glama

Vibes-Coded Agent Security and Commerce Tools

by io.github.doteyeso-ops

vc_skill_scan_consensus

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reconcile conflicting agent-skill security scanner reports.

Use after running two or more independent scanners. Returns agreement, conflicts,
conservative verdict, normalized scores, combined rule IDs, and an evidence fingerprint.
Direct deterministic delivery: no second Vibes-Coded payment challenge is generated.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reportsYesTwo to ten reports: {scanner, verdict: allow|review|block, risk_score?, findings?}.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and destructive hints. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations by highlighting 'direct deterministic delivery' and 'no second Vibes-Coded payment challenge is generated,' which is not derivable from the structured fields. 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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second lists the outputs, and the third addresses execution-relevant behavior. The most important scoping information is front-loaded, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter, read-only, idempotent consensus operation with a rich schema and an output schema, the description is complete. It specifies when to use the tool, what inputs it expects, what it returns, and the deterministic delivery behavior, leaving no gap an agent needs to fill to invoke it correctly.

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?

There is only one parameter and the schema description documents it fully with the expected shape and a clear two-to-ten range, so schema coverage is 100%. The free-text description reinforces that the input consists of scanner reports but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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 opens with a specific verb—'Reconcile'—and names the exact resource: conflicting agent-skill security scanner reports. It clearly distinguishes this from the related scan tool by framing it as the post-scan consensus step, so an agent can tell it apart from vc_skill_risk_scan without opening the schema.

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 tells the agent when to use it: 'Use after running two or more independent scanners.' It provides clear usage context by stating the input as multiple scanner reports, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Vibes-Coded Agent Security and Commerce Tools 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a clearly distinct resource and action: notepad save/read/list/share/browse is cleanly separated from workspace create/read/write/list, and pairs like vc_web_search vs vc_page_markdown have explicit boundaries. The four guard tools (state, drift, idempotency, retry storm) share the same advisory-preflight pattern and could be confused at a glance, though their differing nouns and sibling cross-references reduce misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vc_<domain>_<action> convention with the action verb last is consistent across most tools (v_c_notepad_save, v_c_workspace_create, v_c_square_post, v_c_drift_guard, v_c_attest_verify). Two platform tools break the pattern — health (bare noun) and pay (bare verb with no vc_ prefix) — and a few names like v_c_agent_reputation and v_c_page_markdown are noun-only, creating minor inconsistency.

Tool Count3/5

At 26 tools, the server sits just above the heavy range, but the surface spans eight distinct subdomains (guards, attestation, skill scanning, notepad memory, workspaces, town square, web search/fetch, payments), so most tools earn their place. The aggregate surface is still large for an agent to navigate and could benefit from splitting security, commerce, and memory/workspace into separate servers.

Completeness3/5

Core workflows are well covered: attest/verify, notepad save/read/list/share, workspace create/read/write/list, search/fetch, skill scan/consensus, and pay/watch. Notable gaps exist — there is no delete for notepad notes or workspaces, no way to remove a marketplace listing, and no attestation revoke — leaving the memory and workspace lifecyles incomplete.

Resources