litmus
Server Details
Grade MCP servers A to F with the open behavioral litmus. npm: full toolset; hosted: lookups only.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- polygraphso/litmus
- GitHub Stars
- 7
- Server Listing
- Polygraph
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Score is being calculated. Check back soon.
Available Tools
3 toolscheck_serverCheck a server's published polygraph gradeRead-onlyInspect
Read a server's published behavioral grade (A-F) from polygraph.so in under a second; no execution. The pre-flight check before recommending or installing an MCP server. On a miss it returns not_available (unevaluated: neither safe nor unsafe) with next steps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| server_ref | Yes | Registry-prefixed server ref: npm/<name>, npm/@scope/<name>, pypi/<name>, or github/<owner>/<repo>, with an optional @version. Example: npm/@modelcontextprotocol/server-filesystem |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| grade | No | A-F, present when status is graded. |
| status | Yes | Whether a published grade exists. |
| categories | No | Per-category pass/fail, present when graded. |
| report_url | No | |
| self_grade | No | One-command reproduce/grade, present on a miss. |
| server_ref | Yes | |
| version_match | No | |
| current_version | No |
list_serversList servers with a published gradeARead-onlyInspect
Servers with a published polygraph grade, sorted A-first then by ref. Returns up to limit rows starting at offset (default limit 25, capped at 100 per call); grade restricts to one letter. summary always covers the full graded corpus (a total plus a count per grade), regardless of grade, limit, or offset.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| grade | No | Restrict to servers with this grade. | |
| limit | No | Rows to return. Default 25, capped at 100 per call. | |
| offset | No | Rows to skip before taking `limit`, for paging past the first page. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| total | Yes | Rows matching `grade` (if given), before `limit`/`offset`. Equals summary.total when grade is omitted. |
| servers | Yes | |
| summary | Yes | Always covers the full graded corpus, independent of `grade`, `limit`, or `offset`. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds beyond that: sorting order, pagination default and cap, and that summary always covers the full corpus regardless of filters. No contradictions.
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 a single clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then details pagination and summary behavior. It is concise but could be split for readability.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema, annotations, and sibling tools, the description adequately covers pagination, filtering, and summary behavior. It does not explain 'ref' but this seems minor.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats default and cap for limit/offset, which are already in schema descriptions, and mentions grade restricts to one letter. Adds minimal extra value beyond the schema.
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 it lists servers with a published polygraph grade, sorted A-first then by ref. It distinguishes from siblings check_server and request_grade by focusing on listing filtered results.
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 explains pagination with limit/offset, grade filtering, and summary behavior, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the sibling tool names imply their different purposes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
request_gradeRequest a polygraph grade for an MCP serverIdempotentInspect
Record a grade request with polygraph.so. Recording is free; only real, plausibly-MCP targets are accepted. Grading starts once the request's one-time $1 USD fee is paid: payment.payUrl is the human/browser checkout (paid in $POLYGRAPH), and payment.x402Url is the agent rail, POST the same request body there with an x402-capable client. A bare POST to x402Url returns a 402 with the exact payment requirements; retry with an X-PAYMENT header. Asset is USDC on Base mainnet (eip155:8453). On the x402 rail settlement is deferred: the authorization is charged only once a grade lands, and a run the harness cannot complete voids it, so nothing is charged. Paying starts a 48h grading clock. The fee buys the run, never the grade. After paying, poll check_server with the same server_ref for the published result, or poll statusUrl for progress.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| server_ref | Yes | Registry-prefixed server ref: npm/<name>, npm/@scope/<name>, pypi/<name>, or github/<owner>/<repo>, with an optional @version. Example: npm/@modelcontextprotocol/server-filesystem |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| demand | Yes | How many times this server has been requested. |
| status | Yes | |
| created | Yes | false if the server was already recorded. |
| payment | Yes | How grading is paid for. The web checkout settles up front in $POLYGRAPH; the x402 rail takes an authorization that is charged only once a grade lands, and a run the harness cannot complete voids it, so nothing is charged. The fee buys the run, never the grade. |
| requestId | Yes | The recorded request's id. |
| statusUrl | Yes | Poll for grading progress (unpaid, grading, graded, failed); check_server also reflects the published result. |
| server_ref | Yes | The server ref that was recorded. |
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$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!
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.