Skip to main content
Glama
Aguantar

vibescan-mcp-server

by Aguantar
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one lists detection rules, the other performs scans. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names follow a consistent 'vibescan_' prefix with a verb_noun pattern ('rules' for list, 'scan' for execute), making it predictable.

    Tool Count4/5

    With only 2 tools, the set is slightly below the typical 3-15 range, but it is still reasonable for a focused security scanner. Each tool serves a distinct and necessary function.

    Completeness4/5

    The set covers the core workflow of learning about rules and running scans. A minor gap is the absence of a tool to view a single rule in detail, but the overall surface is adequate for the domain.

  • Average 3.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately discloses local scanning and return fields, but omits details on side effects (e.g., file modifications, temporary files) or permissions needed. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

    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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, bullet points, and separate parameter definitions. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary text.

    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?

    Given the tool's complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the core scanning behavior and output fields. It is mostly complete but could detail scanning scope (e.g., recursion, symlinks) for full clarity.

    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 description explains both parameters clearly, compensating for the 0% schema coverage. It provides meaningful defaults and lists valid severity levels. However, it could be more precise (e.g., exact case-sensitive values).

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states 'Scan a project directory for leaked secrets and security issues' and lists specific detection categories. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'vibescan_rules', which could be used for rule management.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    The description provides parameter guidance and a privacy note about local scanning, but it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions. There is no comparison to alternatives or exclusions.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool returns a full list of 17 detection rules with details, which is transparent about its read-only nature and output. No side effects are mentioned, which is appropriate for a list tool.

    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: first states purpose, second describes returns. No unnecessary words, efficiently conveys all needed information.

    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 parameters and an output schema existing, the description is complete: it explains the tool's purpose, return content, and count. The sibling tool context is implicit but sufficient.

    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, and schema description coverage is 100% (no params). The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. According to guidelines, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4.

    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 lists available VibeScan detection rules and specifies it returns IDs, names, and descriptions. It distinguishes from the sibling tool vibescan_scan which likely performs scans.

    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 description mentions 'Useful for understanding what VibeScan checks for,' implying usage before scanning, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

vibescan-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

vibescan-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Aguantar/vibescan-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server