F
license-
qualityF
maintenanceScans MCP servers for security hardening issues including capability declarations, transport, and tool descriptions.
Last updated
1
mcpcheckup
Server Details
Scans remote MCP servers for protocol, security, and TLS issues; exposes scan tools via MCP.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- fpetitit/mcpcheck
- GitHub Stars
- 0
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
A3.5/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 3.6/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation4/5
The two tools have distinct purposes: scan_mcp_server returns raw scan data, while create_scorecard returns a formatted scorecard with a URL and image. They are related but not ambiguous, though an agent might mistakenly think create_scorecard performs the scan internally.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'create_scorecard' and 'scan_mcp_server'. The naming is clear and predictable.
Tool Count3/5
With only 2 tools, the server feels sparse but may be acceptable for a focused service. A broader set like listing or deleting scorecards could be expected, but the count is not extreme.
Completeness2/5
The server lacks tools for retrieving, updating, or deleting scorecards or scans. After creating a scorecard, there is no way to access it later without re-running, which is a significant gap.
Available Tools
2 toolscreate_scorecardCreate MCP scorecardBInspect
Scan a remote MCP server and return a shareable scorecard: security score (0-100), letter grade, a public scorecard page URL, and an Open Graph image URL for embedding or social sharing.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The MCP server endpoint to score, e.g. https://example.com/mcp |
Tool Definition Quality
B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool modifies the server, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. The use of 'scan' suggests read-only, but 'create' in the name implies record creation, creating ambiguity.
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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and return values. Every part earns its place, with no fluff.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and return fields. It could mention error handling or output format, but it is largely sufficient.
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%, and the schema already describes the URL parameter well. The description adds a minor clarification ('MCP server endpoint to score') but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it scans a remote MCP server and returns a shareable scorecard with specific fields (security score, letter grade, URLs). The verb 'scan' and resource 'remote MCP server' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'scan_mcp_server', which might also scan but return different data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'scan_mcp_server'. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
scan_mcp_serverScan MCP serverAInspect
Run a full MCPCheckup scan against a remote MCP server: handshake, protocol version, tool/resource/prompt inventory, security heuristics, network/TLS posture, and license info.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The MCP server endpoint to scan, e.g. https://example.com/mcp |
Tool Definition Quality
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses all major activities of the scan (handshake, inventory, security heuristics) without causing ambiguity. No annotations contradict description, but it does not mention network requirements or potential side effects.
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?
Single, well-structured sentence with front-loaded action verb. No redundant or unnecessary information.
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 single parameter, no output schema, and sibling tool, description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what it covers. Lacks explicit mention of return format but still adequate.
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 covers 100% of parameters with description for 'url'. The description adds minor context ('remote MCP server' vs 'endpoint'), but does not significantly expand on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Clearly states verb 'Run a full MCPCheckup scan' and resource 'remote MCP server', listing specific components (handshake, protocol version, etc.). Distinguishes from sibling tool 'create_scorecard' by focusing on scanning rather than scorecard creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage for scanning an MCP server, but no explicit guidance on when to use versus create_scorecard or alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites provided.
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
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceSecurity scanning for MCP servers from the inside out. Provides runtime inspection, AST-based static analysis, config audit, dependency analysis, and OWASP MCP Top 10 compliance in a single MCP server.Last updated55165MIT
- Alicense-qualityBmaintenancePassive security scanner that audits a running MCP server against the OWASP MCP Top 10 and grades it A-F. Read-only static analysis of the advertised tools, prompts and resources with console/JSON/SARIF output, and it also runs as an MCP server itself.Last updated56MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceScans MCP servers for prompt-injection, tool-poisoning, and SSRF vulnerabilities using 30+ canonical rules across 5 severity tiers, with optional signed safety reports for procurement.Last updated5MIT