get_server_report
Read-only
Return the full machine-readable verify report for a specific MCP server identifier.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifier | Yes | Canonical server identifier in namespace/name format. |
MCP Verify
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation as read-only. The description adds that the report is 'full' and 'machine-readable', which is useful but minimal. It doesn't disclose details about caching, freshness, or any side effects, but the annotation lowers the burden.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the action, resource, and scope efficiently.
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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently states what is returned. It could elaborate on the report's contents, but the current level is adequate given the tool's simplicity and annotation support.
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% with the parameter described as 'Canonical server identifier in namespace/name format.' The description adds no further parameter-specific semantics beyond calling it a 'specific MCP server identifier', so the baseline 3 applies.
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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'full machine-readable verify report' for a specific MCP server identifier. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_drift_report and compare_servers, which target different reports or actions.
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 implies usage: when you need the verify report for a known server identifier. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names provide enough differentiation that the intended context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct resources and actions (e.g., get_agent vs. get_drift_report). A few pairs like search/search_servers and fetch/get_server_report overlap in intent, but descriptions clarify differences in output and purpose. Agents may need to read carefully but can generally tell tools apart.
Naming Consistency4/5
Nearly all tool names follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (list_agents, create_mandate, export_policy). The bare aliases 'fetch' and 'search' deviate slightly, but are clearly intentional, and there is no mix of camelCase or other styles. Overall consistent and predictable.
Tool Count3/5
22 tools is on the heavy side, falling into the '16-25' borderline range. While each tool appears to serve a distinct function, the set could be consolidated (e.g., the multiple 'get_*_options' tools). It is not excessive enough to be chaotic, but it is above the ideal 3-15 range.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers core workflows for server search, comparison, report generation, policy export, mandate creation, agent risk management, and decision-making. Minor gaps exist, such as no create/update/delete for most resources and no subscription creation, but the domain is read/decision-heavy and core lifecycle coverage is adequate.