Pre-flight MCP security. Blocks compromised deps + tool drift. HMAC-signed. Dredd judges.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
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.
Average 4.7/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of overlap or confusion between tools. Each tool (and this is the sole tool) has a clearly defined purpose.
The single tool uses a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern ('check_mcp_server'). Consistency is trivially satisfied with only one tool.
With only one tool, the server feels thin relative to typical MCP servers, which often have multiple tools. The tool is substantial in functionality, but the count is at the borderline for being too few.
The tool fully covers the server's stated purpose of performing pre-flight security checks on MCP servers, including reputation and dependency-graph analysis. It returns a complete verdict with evidence and no obvious dead ends for the intended use case.
check_mcp_serverAInspectPre-flight security verdict for an MCP server invocation. Judges BOTH server-level reputation AND the server's dependency graph (npm/pypi) against the DugganUSA threat-intel corpus (1.13M+ IOCs, Shai-Hulud + typosquat + LOLBin families). Returns BLOCK / ADVISORY / REVIEW / ALLOW with severity, evidence, dep-graph summary, and HMAC-signed response. REVIEW means we hold NO RECORD of this server -- not that it is safe. Treat REVIEW as do-not-proceed-blindly: a brand-new attacker-published server looks exactly like this. ALLOW is only returned when we actually resolved the server and scanned its dependency graph; check known_to_us and dep_graph.scanned to confirm. Use this BEFORE invoking any other MCP server tool, especially ones installed from outside the official MCP Registry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | No | Optional name of the specific tool being invoked | |
| server | Yes | MCP server name (e.g. io.github.foo/bar) or substring | |
| version | No | Optional version of the MCP server (semver) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that REVIEW does not mean safe, that ALLOW is only returned after actual resolution and scanning, and that known_to_us and dep_graph.scanned must be checked. It also mentions the HMAC-signed response, adding security context. These are beyond what annotations would typically provide and give the agent a clear behavioral model.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides critical behavioral caveats and usage guidance. Each sentence adds substantive information about verdict semantics or invocation guidance. It's longer than a minimal description, but every sentence earns its place, and the structure logically flows from purpose to outcomes to usage.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values and semantics. It does so thoroughly: lists the four verdicts, details evidence and HMAC signing, explains the meaning of REVIEW and ALLOW, and clarifies when to trust the result. It also gives usage context. This is complete for a security-check tool.
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 schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter (tool, server, version). The description does not add parameter-level details, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting. It implicitly connects parameters to the overall purpose (e.g., 'server' maps to server-level reputation) but doesn't go beyond that.
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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Pre-flight security verdict') and identifies the resource ('MCP server invocation'). It also outlines the output categories (BLOCK/ADVISORY/REVIEW/ALLOW), which distinguishes it from any generic security tool. Though there are no sibling tools to differentiate from, the description is not a tautology and conveys a distinct purpose.
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 explicitly instructs to use this tool 'BEFORE invoking any other MCP server tool' and calls out the specific context of servers installed from outside the official registry. It also explains what REVIEW means ('do-not-proceed-blindly') and what ALLOW implies, giving clear guidance on interpreting results. This is strong usage direction.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!