vps-ops-mcp

by Akdag94

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing SSH hosts, inventorying sites, reading logs, security auditing, health checks, and SSL status. There is no overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tool names use snake_case and follow a predictable pattern, though not all are verb_noun (e.g., security_audit, server_health, ssl_status are noun_noun). Overall consistent and readable.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools is a well-scoped set for a VPS monitoring server, covering essential inspection operations without unnecessary bloat.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers major inspection needs for a VPS (hosts, sites, logs, security, health, SSL). Missing action-oriented tools (e.g., restart, deploy), but the read-only focus is intentional and well-covered.
Average 4.1/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 5 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 8, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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?
The description states 'Read-only snapshot', indicating no side effects, and lists the data returned. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose authentication requirements, potential performance impact, or error conditions, so transparency is adequate but not thorough.
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 concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and contents. It is front-loaded with 'Read-only snapshot' and avoids unnecessary words, though a slightly more structured presentation (e.g., list) could improve scannability.
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?
No output schema is present, so the description must explain return values. It lists key data points (uptime, load, memory, disk, top processes), which is fairly complete for a health check. It lacks error handling details but is otherwise sufficient for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The input schema has one parameter 'host' with a clear description. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's description. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 provides a read-only snapshot of server health including uptime, load average, memory, disk usage, and top processes. It is specific about the resource (server health) and the action (snapshot), and the listed content distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_hosts or read_logs.
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 implies usage for monitoring server health but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like security_audit or ssl_status. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites (e.g., SSH access) is provided.
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?
The description discloses that the operation is read-only and that sub-checks requiring passwordless sudo will 'degrade gracefully with a note'. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the input schema, especially since no annotations are provided.
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 concise with two sentences, no extraneous information, and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds value.
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 has one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality and important behavior (degradation). It lists the checks performed, which helps an agent infer output structure. Slightly less complete if the output format is needed, but adequate.
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?
The input schema already fully describes the single 'host' parameter with its format. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond this, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 it is a 'Read-only security posture check' and enumerates specific areas checked (listening ports, UFW, fail2ban, sshd, updates, logins), making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.
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 implies usage for security checks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like server_health or ssl_status. It mentions graceful degradation for missing sudo, which gives some context but lacks clear when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance.
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, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only and local ('purely local — no connection is made'), which is critical for agent safety. It does not specify details like whether it reads all aliases or the output format, but the given context is sufficient.
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: the first states the core functionality, the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded, brief, and contains no extraneous words.
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?
The tool has no output schema. The description explains what the tool does and its side effects (none), but does not specify the output format (e.g., array of alias strings). For a simple list tool, this is adequate but could be more 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?
The input schema has no parameters (coverage 100%), and the description adds no parameter information. Following the rule that high schema coverage defaults to 3, and since there are no parameters to explain, this score is appropriate.
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 explicitly states the tool lists host aliases from the local ~/.ssh/config and emphasizes it is purely local with no connection made. This clearly identifies the resource and action, distinguishing it from sibling tools that likely involve remote operations.
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 advises using the aliases from this tool as the 'host' argument for other tools, providing clear context for when to use it. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparisons with specific siblings, but the intent is clear.
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?
The description declares it read-only, which is a key behavioral trait. However, without annotations, it could detail authorization needs or response format. The offered detail is good but not exhaustive.
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?
Single, well-structured sentence front-loads the read-only nature and lists components precisely. No unnecessary words.
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?
The description covers the tool's domain and scope adequately, given no output schema. Could mention response structure or limits, but sufficient for understanding.
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?
The description does not add meaning beyond the input schema; the parameter 'host' is fully described in the schema. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.
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 it lists hosted sites and apps, specifying nginx sites, PM2 processes, and systemd services. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_hosts and server_health by focusing on inventory.
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 for inspecting server hosting, but does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or contrast with alternatives. Context from sibling tools suggests differentiation, but lacking explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'Read-only tail' (non-destructive) and lists sources, but does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. The absence of annotations places a higher burden, but the description covers the essential behavior.
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?
Two sentences, no redundant information. The purpose is stated first, followed by a critical parameter dependency. Efficient and well-structured.
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-only log tail tool, the description covers source types and parameter constraints. The only minor gap is the lack of output format description (e.g., returns raw log lines), but this is not critical given the context.
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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by clarifying that `name` is conditionally required (for pm2 and journal), which is not enforced by the schema. This additional constraint helps the agent correctly invoke the tool.
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?
Description clearly states 'Read-only tail of common logs' and lists specific log types (nginx, PM2, systemd), distinguishing it from sibling tools that cover hosts, sites, security, health, and SSL status.
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?
Provides clear context for using the tool to read logs, and specifies that `name` is required for pm2 and journal sources. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are mentioned, but given sibling tools are unrelated, this is sufficient.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses read-only operation via openssl s_client, server-side execution, and auto-discovery limit of 20 domains. Could mention output format.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, every word earns its place. No wasted verbiage.
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?
Good given no output schema, but lacks description of output format (list of domains with expiry dates? any warnings?). Adequate but could be more complete.
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 100% (baseline 3). Description clarifies 'host' as SSH alias and 'domain' as override for auto-discovery, adding meaning beyond 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 it checks TLS certificate expiry dates, specifies auto-discovery vs explicit domain, and is distinct from sibling tools like security_audit or server_health.
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?
Describes when to use with/without domain, mentions internal DNS capability, but doesn't explicitly compare to sibling security_audit or state when not to use.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![vps-ops-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Akdag94/vps-ops-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Akdag94/vps-ops-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![vps-ops-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Akdag94/vps-ops-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Akdag94/vps-ops-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/Akdag94/vps-ops-mcp'

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