Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Fivebar Trading

by io.github.fivebar-xyz
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Is this GitHub repo what it claims?

repo_check
Read-only

Before you clone, run or trust a GitHub repository (a bot, a tool, an SDK someone sent you): its age and its owner's, commit history (a whole history pushed within an hour is usually a copy), contributors, how many stars arrived each day (bought stars come in a one-day burst), install scripts (and the files they run) and setup.py that download and run code, release downloads that are programs rather than the repo's code, a README handing out password-protected downloads or file-sharing links, CI that runs outside pull requests' code with the repo's secrets or puts issue text into a shell, unpinned actions, a README that asks for a wallet's private key or seed phrase, fork, archived, license, security policy. Verdict: high risk, caution or no warnings, with reasons. Use for 'is this repo legit?', 'is this GitHub bot safe to run?'. Facts about the repository, not its authors.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "repo": "<repo>"
    },
    "name": "repo_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesowner/name or a github.com URL

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds a great deal beyond that: the full checklist of signals examined (commit timing, star bursts, install scripts, CI secret exposure, wallet-phishing READMEs) and the outcome taxonomy of high risk / caution / no warnings. It also bounds scope explicitly with 'Facts about the repository, not its authors,' which prevents an agent from over-reading the verdict.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The critical framing is front-loaded and the verdict is stated, but the middle is one sprawling sentence of comma-joined checks that is grammatically muddy ('its age and its owner's, commit history') and imposes a heavy read. The content mostly earns its place, yet the delivery could be far tighter as a short bulleted list of signals.

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 one-parameter read-only check with no output schema, the description covers what is examined, what verdict form to expect, and where its scope ends. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide to call it or interpret the answer is missing.

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 a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('owner/name or a github.com URL'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no further detail on input form or accepted variants, which is the expected baseline-3 case when the schema does the work.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Before you clone, run or trust a GitHub repository') and states exactly what is inspected and what is returned ('Verdict: high risk, caution or no warnings, with reasons'). It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like package_check, mcp_check, or site_check because the target is explicitly a GitHub repo.

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?

It gives a clear usage context ('Before you clone, run or trust a GitHub repository') and echoes the natural user phrasings it answers ('is this repo legit?', 'is this GitHub bot safe to run?'). It stops short of naming a when-not condition or pointing at sibling tools for non-GitHub artifacts, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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

All Fivebar Trading toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources