Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Tiny Utils

by net.bigfloppy.utils
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

trust_scan

MCP Server Trust Scan: audit any public MCP server (card fields, handshake, tools/list, HEAD, auth posture, hygiene leaks). Deterministic score 0-100 + grade + per-check report. Input: url of the server or its /mcp endpoint.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "trust_scan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYeshttps URL of the MCP server or its /mcp endpoint
deepNoinclude hygiene probes (default true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden: it discloses the probe types and that scoring is deterministic, which implies a non-mutating audit. It does not state that the tool makes outbound network requests, expected latency/timeouts, or what happens when the target is unreachable or unresponsive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the tool name and purpose, then the check list, output shape, and input in quick succession. The parenthetical enumeration is dense but earns its place by telling the agent what the audit covers.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Because there is no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the return (0-100 score, grade, per-check report). But with no annotations and no coverage of failure modes, request safety, or cost, an agent lacks behavioral context needed to call it confidently against arbitrary endpoints.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the description echoes the url-or-/mcp-endpoint semantics without adding format or edge-case detail. The mention of 'hygiene probes' loosely ties to the 'deep' flag but adds no operational guidance beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('audit') and resource ('any public MCP server') and enumerates exactly what is inspected (card fields, handshake, tools/list, HEAD, auth posture, hygiene leaks). Siblings are unrelated utilities, so there is no ambiguity about which tool to pick.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The scope constraint 'any public MCP server' is implied, and the input note ('url of the server or its /mcp endpoint') tells the agent what to pass. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no statement about unavailable/private servers, and no signal for when to flip 'deep' off.

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

All Tiny Utils toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources