SentinelMCP

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: checking repair limits, querying platform capabilities, scanning logs, retrieving service states, monitoring metrics, and performing root cause analysis. No two tools overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_repair_strategy_limit, get_platform_capabilities). No mixing of conventions or ambiguous names.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a system monitoring and analysis server. It covers core operations without excess or deficiency.
Completeness4/5
The tool set effectively covers analysis and observation (logs, metrics, services, platform capabilities, root cause). However, it lacks repair or remediation tools (e.g., apply fix, restart service), which is a minor gap given the 'repair' focus in the first tool's name.
Average 3.7/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 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 status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states logs are summarized locally and to prevent token bloat, but does not specify the output format, if it is read-only, or if any state is modified. The summarization mechanism (e.g., aggregation, suppression of details) is unclear.
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 two sentences: one for action and one for purpose. It is concise and front-loaded, with no extraneous information. Slightly more detail on output could improve it.
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?
With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not describe what the agent receives (summary format) or any side effects. More context is needed for the agent to use the tool correctly.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema; for example, it mentions 'systemd service names' which aligns with the 'service' parameter. Baseline 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 action ('Fetch and parse'), resource ('system/service logs'), and purpose ('summarizes errors and warning patterns to prevent token usage bloat'). It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_service_states' or 'analyze_root_cause' by focusing on log summarization.
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 use for log summarization to avoid token bloat, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use instead of siblings, prerequisites, or exclusions. No 'when-not' or alternative tools are mentioned.
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 full burden. It mentions outputs (confidence scores, severity, ranked hypotheses) and specific behaviors (handles hardware faults, integrates with OSV.dev). However, it does not disclose whether the tool modifies system state, requires authentication, or has rate limits. Transparency 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 three sentences, each earning its place: first defines core purpose and outputs, second adds hardware fault handling, third mentions CVE integration. It is concise, front-loaded, and free of fluff. Perfectly sized for quick agent comprehension.
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 the tool has 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description should elaborate on the return format and integration details (e.g., how OSV.dev lookup works—are both packageName and packageVersion required?). It only vaguely mentions outputs, leaving the agent to infer response structure. Gaps in output specification and integration usage make it incomplete.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by linking packageName and packageVersion to OSV.dev integration and metrics to hardware faults, but does not substantially enhance understanding beyond the schema. It does not explain parameter format or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.
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 performs root cause analysis on system evidence, produces confidence scores, severity, and ranked repair hypotheses. It distinguishes from siblings like scan_system_logs and get_system_metrics by mentioning hardware fault handling and OSV.dev integration, making its purpose specific and differentiated.
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 when system evidence is available, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like scan_system_logs. There is no guidance on prerequisites or when not to use. Usage context is inferred but not directly communicated.
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. It discloses that the tool checks failure counts and may mark as BLOCKED, but does not specify the threshold for 'multiple times' or what the BLOCKED state means, leaving behavioral ambiguity.
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 concise sentences with no redundant information. Every word adds value, and the key behavior is front-loaded.
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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description captures the core purpose and basic behavior. However, it lacks details on the failure threshold and consequences of BLOCKED status, which slightly reduces completeness.
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 documentation covers both parameters (fingerprint and strategyName) with clear descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline.
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 the tool ensures a repair strategy is not retried endlessly and marks it as BLOCKED after multiple failures. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools which are about system capabilities or metrics.
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 preventing endless retries but provides no explicit guidance on when to use, when not to use, or alternatives. Sibling tools are unrelated, so no direct comparison is available.
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 full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Fetch') and cross-platform support, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or any side effects. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences that clearly convey the purpose and scope. Every word adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.
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 core function and cross-platform nature. However, without an output schema, mentioning the return format would improve completeness. Nonetheless, it is sufficient for a fetch operation.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, just mentioning cross-platform support. Base 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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'system services', clearly stating the action and target. It also notes cross-platform support, distinguishing it from sibling tools like scan_system_logs or get_system_metrics.
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 when service status is needed but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusion criteria.
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 states it monitors performance indicators and OS support, but does not disclose potential side effects (assumed read-only), prerequisites (e.g., smartctl for S.M.A.R.T.), or error scenarios. Adequate but not rich.
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 with no extraneous information. The first sentence immediately states the tool's purpose and scope. Highly efficient and front-loaded.
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 monitoring tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main points (metrics collected, OS support). Could optionally mention output format, but is largely 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% (2 parameters both described). The description adds context about what is monitored (CPU, RAM, disk, S.M.A.R.T.) which maps to checkSmartHealth, but does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond the schema. Baseline 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 specifies the tool monitors system performance indicators (CPU, RAM, disk space, S.M.A.R.T. health) and supports Windows and Linux. It distinguishes itself from siblings like scan_system_logs or get_service_states which focus on logs or service states.
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?
Usage is implied through the description (monitoring performance), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. No alternatives among siblings are mentioned.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden but only states it's a query operation, which implies read-only. It does not disclose output format, performance implications, or any constraints. This is minimally adequate.
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 concise sentence with no redundant or unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and resource efficiently.
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?
Given the simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is somewhat incomplete—it does not specify what the returned capabilities look like or if any platform-specific differences exist. More detail would improve agent understanding.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable as the schema is fully covered.
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 'Query' and identifies the resource as 'operational capabilities and supported monitoring features' on the host platform, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on logs, metrics, services, or repair strategies.
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 provides clear context ('on this host platform') but does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or mention alternatives. Its purpose is distinct enough from siblings to imply appropriate usage.
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:

[![SentinalMCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AnanthanarayanKV/SentinalMCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AnanthanarayanKV/SentinalMCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![SentinalMCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AnanthanarayanKV/SentinalMCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AnanthanarayanKV/SentinalMCP)

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/AnanthanarayanKV/SentinalMCP'

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