F
license-
qualityB
maintenancePassive website security and trust auditor that checks for security, SEO, AI surface, email, and other exposures, producing a score and remediation plan.
uratori（ウラトリ）
Server Details
日本企業の第三者認証(ISO 27001/Pマーク/ISMAP等)を公開情報から実調査し、5区分の判定と証跡URLを返す。未確認は未取得の断定ではない。
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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 Definition Quality
A4.5/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4.6/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one provides definitions of status categories, the other performs research on certifications. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tools use consistent snake_case and follow a verb_noun pattern ('get_status_definitions' and 'research_vendor_certifications'), making them predictable and clear.
Tool Count3/5
With only 2 tools, the server feels minimal. While the tools cover the core workflow, the count is at the low end of what is typically appropriate for a server with a narrow purpose.
Completeness4/5
The server provides the essential definitions and a research tool to investigate certifications, which covers the main task. Minor gaps such as batch research or historical queries are not critical for the narrow scope.
Available Tools
2 toolsget_status_definitionsAInspect
uratori の判定5区分(verified_official / public_evidence / vendor_confirm_required / not_found / expired_or_negative)と、not_found の内訳4区分の定義、調査方法と限界を返す。research_vendor_certifications の結果を解釈する前に一度読むことを推奨。
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully describes the tool's output: definitions, methods, and limitations. It is a simple read-only tool with no side effects or auth requirements mentioned, but the description is transparent enough for the task.
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 the main output, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.
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?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return content (definitions, methods, limitations) and usage recommendation. It is complete for a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so per guidelines the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info beyond what the schema provides, which is sufficient.
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 returns definitions of 5 judgment categories and 4 subcategories of 'not_found', along with investigation methods and limitations. It distinguishes from the sibling tool by recommending reading this before using research_vendor_certifications.
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 explicitly recommends reading this before interpreting results from research_vendor_certifications, providing clear context for use. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the recommendation is strong and informative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
research_vendor_certificationsAInspect
日本の取引先(ベンダー)1社の第三者認証・監査レポート(ISO/IEC 27001, プライバシーマーク, ISMAP, SOC 2 等)の取得状況を、公開情報(公的レジストリ・企業公式サイト)から実調査して返す。判定は5区分(公式確認/公開記載=自己申告/要ベンダー確認/公開情報では未確認/失効・取消)で、各判定に証跡URLと取得日が付く。「未確認」は未取得の断定ではない。結果は参考情報であり、安全/危険の判定や認証の保証ではない。法人番号(13桁)を指定すると同名別法人との取り違えを防げる。無料・数十秒かかることがある。
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| serviceUrl | Yes | 対象サービスまたは会社公式サイトのURL(http(s)) | |
| companyName | Yes | 会社名(例: フリー株式会社)。正式な登記名称に近いほど正確 | |
| serviceName | No | サービス名(任意。省略時は会社名を使用) | |
| corporateNumber | No | 法人番号13桁(任意・推奨。同名別法人の取り違え防止) |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool takes tens of seconds, is free, results are reference only, 'unconfirmed' does not imply not obtained, and provides 5-level judgments with evidence URLs and acquisition dates. This is thorough and transparent.
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 a single dense paragraph that covers all necessary aspects without redundancy. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for readability.
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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (5-level judgment with evidence URLs and dates) and includes important caveats about limitations and usage. It is complete for a tool with 4 parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes each parameter. The description adds context: companyName should be close to official registration, corporateNumber is recommended to avoid mix-ups, and serviceName defaults to companyName if omitted. This adds value 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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: researching third-party certifications and audit reports for a single Japanese vendor using public information. It specifies the certification types and judgment categories, and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_status_definitions' which likely provides status definitions.
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 explains when to use the tool (to check vendor certifications) and includes guidance on optional parameters like corporateNumber to avoid mix-ups. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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!
Related MCP Servers
- -license-quality-maintenanceEnables ethical security testing and attack surface management through SSL certificate validation, CVE queries, subdomain enumeration, security header analysis, and comprehensive reconnaissance capabilities. Designed for authorized penetration testing workflows with responsible disclosure practices.
- Alicense-qualityAmaintenanceProvides AI content watermarking and C2PA compliance for EU AI Act Article 50, enabling detection, verification, and batch processing of authenticated content.4MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables searching and bidirectional mapping of 1,451 security controls across 262 SCF-mapped frameworks, including ISO 27001, NIST CSF, DORA, and many others, through natural language queries.149Apache 2.0