Skip to main content
Glama

Server Details

Pre-flight MCP security. Blocks compromised deps + tool drift. HMAC-signed. Dredd judges.

Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL
Repository
pduggusa/dredd-mcp
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 DescriptionsA

Average 4/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The tool's purpose is singular and well-defined.

Naming Consistency5/5

With a single tool, naming consistency is inherently maintained. The name 'check_mcp_server' follows a clear verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count5/5

The server's purpose is to provide a pre-flight security verdict for MCP servers. One tool is perfectly scoped for this focused responsibility.

Completeness4/5

The tool fully covers its stated function of security checking, but the domain might benefit from additional tools for threat intelligence updates or detailed reporting. However, for a single-purpose server, it is reasonably complete.

Available Tools

1 tool
check_mcp_serverAInspect

Pre-flight security verdict for an MCP server invocation. Returns BLOCK / ADVISORY / ALLOW with severity, evidence, and HMAC-signed response. Backed by the DugganUSA threat-intel corpus (1.13M+ IOCs). Use this BEFORE invoking any other MCP server tool, especially those installed from outside the official MCP Registry.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toolNoOptional name of the specific tool being invoked
serverYesMCP server name (e.g. io.github.foo/bar) or substring
versionNoOptional version of the MCP server (semver)
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It describes the return format (verdict, severity, evidence, HMAC) and the threat-intel corpus backing. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, authorization needs, or error conditions, leaving moderate gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loads the key purpose, and contains no unnecessary verbiage. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the return values (verdict types, evidence, HMAC). It also mentions the threat-intel corpus. It does not detail error cases or pagination, but for a pre-flight check it is sufficiently complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, except a parenthetical example for the 'server' parameter. It does not elaborate on 'tool' or 'version' parameters.

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 it returns a security verdict (BLOCK/ADVISORY/ALLOW) with severity, evidence, and HMAC-signed response. The verb 'check' and resource 'MCP server invocation' are specific, and there are no sibling tools to differentiate.

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 advises 'Use this BEFORE invoking any other MCP server tool', particularly those from outside the official registry. It clearly states the context, though it does not specify when not to use it.

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

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.