Skip to main content
Glama

SaSame MCP Observatory + Gold Rush Town

by online.sasame

get_badge

Read-only

Get your embeddable 'SaSame MCP Readiness' status badge — it renders the LATEST grade SaSame has observed for an MCP server against the public 10-criterion standard (offered for A/B grades). Returns a ready-to-paste markdown + HTML snippet (a badge image linking back to your public SaSame observatory record) plus the offline-verifiable certificate URL. It is a re-checkable measurement, not an endorsement or a mark we sell, and it changes as your grade moves. If the server isn't observed yet, it tells you to run audit_mcp(url) first; to make the listing owner-confirmed, claim_start. Free, read-only, no signup.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe MCP server endpoint URL to get a badge for (ideally your own)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that it is 'free, read-only, no signup.' It also discloses that the badge 'is a re-checkable measurement, not an endorsement' and changes as the grade moves, providing full behavioral transparency.

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?

The description is packed with useful information in a few sentences, though slightly verbose. It front-loads the main purpose and returns, making it easy to scan.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the return value (markdown+HTML snippet, certificate URL) and error handling (server not observed case). For a single-parameter tool with read-only behavior, this is complete.

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% for the single 'url' parameter. The description adds minimal extra context ('ideally your own'), which is useful but not substantial. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already defines the parameter adequately.

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 uses specific language: 'Get your embeddable 'SaSame MCP Readiness' status badge' and explains what it renders, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_mark_snippet or get_usage_badge by focusing on the readiness badge with a public standard.

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 states when to use (to get a badge for a server), what to do if the server isn't observed ('run audit_mcp(url) first'), and how to make it owner-confirmed ('claim_start'). It lacks explicit exclusions but provides clear context.

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

All SaSame MCP Observatory + Gold Rush Town toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

With 94 tools spanning overlapping concepts (multiple readiness/audit/grade tools, many status checkers, deprecated aliases like trust_* vs observation_*), agents will frequently struggle to pick the right one. While each tool is individually distinct, the sheer volume and conceptual overlap (e.g., audit_mcp, readiness_report, verify_mcp_ready, lookup_readiness, recommend_mcp, subscribe_grade_changes) create high misselection risk.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case with underscores, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb-first (audit_mcp, verify_mcp_ready, claim_start, check_engagement) while others are noun-first (receipt_issue, meter_open, work_order_open, agent_invoice_status). Deprecated aliases like trust_compare vs observation_compare further break consistency, though the majority remain readable.

Tool Count1/5

94 tools is far beyond any reasonable scope for a single server, even one with broad ambitions like 'observatory + town'. The calibration notes 50+ as extreme mismatch; this server far exceeds that. Many tools are highly specific (e.g., factory_resolve_dead_letter, visit_touch_status, start_here) and could be consolidated or split into separate servers.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide range of domains (auditing, claiming, receipts, meters, escrow, work orders, gold rush, town, analytics) and offers many CRUD-like operations, but several lifecycle gaps exist: no cancel/close for work orders (only open/accept/deliver/accept_delivery), escrow (only open/attest/status), or meters (only open/charge/status). Given the massive scope, important operations are missing, though core workflows are present.

Resources