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 4.4/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusing it with another tool. Disambiguation is perfect.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool name 'check_mcp_server' follows a clear verb_noun pattern. With only one tool, there is no inconsistency.

Tool Count5/5

A single tool is appropriate for the focused purpose of pre-flight security checking. Adding more tools would not enhance the server's core functionality.

Completeness5/5

The tool fully covers the server's stated purpose: evaluating a server's reputation and dependency graph. No obvious gaps exist for this narrow domain.

Available Tools

1 tool
check_mcp_serverAInspect

Pre-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 / ALLOW with severity, evidence, dep-graph summary, and HMAC-signed response. Use this BEFORE invoking any other MCP server tool, especially ones 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)
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool checks server reputation and dependency graph, returns severity, evidence, dep-summary, and HMAC-signed response. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., network calls, rate limits) or performance implications, which prevents a perfect score.

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-loaded with purpose and function. Every sentence adds value: first defines the tool, second provides usage guidance and output summary. No wasted words.

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 explains return values (BLOCK/ADVISORY/ALLOW with severity, evidence, dep-graph, HMAC). It covers purpose, timing, and output. Missing could be explanation of the threat-intel corpus or any dependencies, but overall complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the description does not need to add much. It adds context about the tool's purpose and output but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: a 'Pre-flight security verdict for an MCP server invocation' that judges server and dependency reputation against a threat-intel corpus. It specifies the output categories (BLOCK/ADVISORY/ALLOW) and distinguishes itself as a pre-use check, which differentiates from other tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use: 'Use this BEFORE invoking any other MCP server tool, especially ones installed from outside the official MCP Registry.' This provides clear guidance on timing and context, leaving no ambiguity.

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.