universal-agent-control-plane

by Alan-VZ

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

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 targets a different concern: orchestration, state read/write, registry lookup/validation/resolution, and skill execution. Even the two registry tools are clearly separated by search versus resolve/validate semantics.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a domain-prefix_verb pattern (state_get, state_put, registry_search, skill_run, registry_validate, registry_resolve), but orchestrate breaks the pattern by using a bare verb with no prefix. The inconsistency is minor and the names remain readable.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools is a well-scoped size for a control plane server. Each tool covers a distinct function without redundancy, and the count is neither too thin nor too heavy.
Completeness4/5
The core surface is fairly complete: state read/write, registry search/validate/resolve, skill execution, and result orchestration are all present. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit state deletion or registry modification, but agents can work around them with the available tools.
Average 3.1/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- 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.
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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does not disclose whether the routing operation is async, mutating, validating, or what side effects occur per target value such as 'claude', 'copilot', 'other', or 'broadcast'.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant content. The main cost is undefined terminology like 'result envelope', but the structure itself is efficient and direct.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with three required parameters, no annotations, and zero parameter descriptions, this description is too thin. An agent would not know what payload to provide, what the target options mean, or what a broadcast result envelope actually represents, making the tool under-specified for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only lightly maps to the parameters via 'skill result' and 'target'. It does not explain what payload should contain, what skill_name refers to, or what each target value actually does, so it fails to compensate for the schema's missing parameter descriptions.
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 uses a specific verb, 'Route', and identifies both the resource ('one skill result') and the destination types ('agent target or broadcast result envelope'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like skill_run, though the phrase 'result envelope' is somewhat jargon-heavy and not defined.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer an alternative. It implies a post-skill routing step, but it does not mention prerequisites, relationships to siblings, or conditions for choosing one target type over another.
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 carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool computes effective instructions and skill metadata, implying a read-only resolution process, but it does not disclose whether any state changes occur, how defaults are handled, what 'effective' means, or error behavior.
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 sentence with no fluff and places the core action first. However, it is so brief that it omits important contextual and behavioral details, making the conciseness slightly excessive.
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 is simple with one optional parameter and has an output schema, which lightens the burden of describing return values. Still, with no annotations, no usage guidance, and no profile semantics, the description is only minimally sufficient for correct invocation and selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'profile' parameter. It only restates the parameter name generically and does not explain valid profile values, naming conventions, or how the default 'default' affects resolution.
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 states a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('a profile') with a clear outcome ('effective instructions and skill metadata'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by implying a computation over the profile rather than a search or state operation, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like registry_search or registry_validate. No exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual triggers are provided, so an agent must infer the intended use case from the tool name alone.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden. It does disclose two useful behaviors: skills must be allow-listed, and implementations are reloaded after source changes. But it does not disclose side effects, failure modes, or what happens when a skill is not allow-listed, which matters for a code-execution 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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. 'Allow-listed' and 'reloading after source changes' are both meaningful constraints that earn their place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that runs a skill with a free-form payload, the description is too sparse: it lacks how to find allow-listed skills, how to structure payload, and what execution semantics to expect. The presence of an output schema covers return format, but the safety and parameter context remain incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter guidance. It never explains how skill_name is resolved or what payload should contain, and payload is a free-form object, leaving the most important input completely underspecified.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Run an allow-listed skill'. The reload-after-source-changes detail adds a distinguishing behavioral note. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like orchestrate or registry_search, so it doesn't earn 5.
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?
'Reloading its implementation after source changes' implies the intended use case of running a skill after edits. However, the description does not explain when to prefer this tool over siblings like orchestrate, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention matching semantics, scope of results, read-only nature, or any limitations beyond the generic search action.
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 a single, direct sentence with no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word earns its place.
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 is simple, has an output schema, and the core purpose is clear. However, with no annotations and no parameter guidance, the definition leaves meaningful gaps around when and how to invoke it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not add meaning to the required 'query' parameter. An agent gets no clue about expected query format, search behavior, or result filtering.
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 a specific verb ('Search') and identifies a clear resource: instruction, skill, and prompt documents. This distinguishes it from siblings like registry_validate and registry_resolve, which imply different operations.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus related registry tools. The description states only what it does, with no context for selection or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that validation returns actionable errors, but does not disclose whether the tool modifies the registry, requires specific permissions, or only performs a read-only check. This leaves important behavior ambiguous.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose and expected output.
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?
For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it leaves the meaning of 'canonical registry' and the potential side effects of validation undefined. Additional context about the registry or validation semantics would improve completeness.
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 zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. The baseline of 4 applies here.
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 names a specific verb ('Validate'), a target resource ('canonical registry'), and an outcome ('return actionable errors'). It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like registry_search or registry_resolve, though it does not explicitly state those distinctions.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as registry_search, registry_resolve, or state_get. An agent must infer the intended use case from the name and short description.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the mutation is audited, which is valuable. However, it doesn't clarify whether writes are synchronous, whether they overwrite existing keys, whether there are size limits, or what happens on failure—important for a state-writing 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 a single, focused sentence, front-loading the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and it doesn't waste space with restatements of the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a write tool with no annotations and a sparse schema, the description leaves critical gaps: overwrite behavior, audit specifics, error handling, and how this relates to state_get for round-trip correctness. The output schema is noted but not described, so agents still can't anticipate the return shape.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'namespaced value' generically, providing no added meaning for 'namespace', 'key', or 'value'. The description doesn't explain value types, key constraints, or namespace semantics beyond what the field names already imply.
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 states a specific verb ('Write') and resource ('namespaced value to shared local state'), and mentions auditing the mutation, which distinguishes it from a plain put operation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like state_get or orchestrate, making the differentiation less direct.
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: it's for writing to shared state, and siblings like state_get clearly handle reading. But it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like namespace existence or whether overwriting is allowed.
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 carries the full burden. 'Read' clearly signals a non-mutating operation, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior such as what happens when the key is missing, whether state is per-session, or whether the value is serialized/typed. The description provides some transparency but leaves notable gaps.
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?
A single, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Zero filler; every word contributes to meaning. The brevity is appropriate for a simple two-parameter getter.
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 tool with two required parameters and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. The main missing context is failure behavior (missing key/namespace) and any serialization semantics, but given the tool's simplicity and the output schema, the description covers the essential scope adequately.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds only the concept of namespace and key without explaining their semantics, formats, or relationship. The parameter names (namespace, key) are self-explanatory to a degree, and the required constraint is in the schema. The description adds little beyond what the schema property names imply, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 a read operation on a namespaced value in shared local state, with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('namespaced value'). It distinguishes itself from sibling state_put by implying the read/write split, and from orchestrate/skill_run/registry tools by virtue of focusing on local state.
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 this is for retrieving values from shared local state, but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over other tools or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are named, so the agent must infer context from the sibling list. It is adequate but lacks explicit routing guidance.
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

universal-agent-control-plane MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

[![universal-agent-control-plane MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Alan-VZ/universal-agent-control-plane/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Alan-VZ/universal-agent-control-plane)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![universal-agent-control-plane MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Alan-VZ/universal-agent-control-plane/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Alan-VZ/universal-agent-control-plane)

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/Alan-VZ/universal-agent-control-plane'

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