Skip to main content
Glama
Baneado98

approval-guardian

by Baneado98
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

75%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have distinct and complementary purposes: check_approvals performs an audit and provides a verdict, while revoke_plan generates a list of revoke actions. There is no overlap in functionality.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: check_approvals and revoke_plan, making them predictable and easy to understand.

    Tool Count4/5

    With only 2 tools, the server is minimal but well-scoped for its specific purpose of auditing and planning revocations. It covers the essential operations without unnecessary bloat.

    Completeness4/5

    The tools cover the core workflow of auditing approvals and generating a revocation plan. The lack of a tool for executing revocations is intentional (read-only design), so the surface is complete for its stated domain.

  • Average 4.5/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 2 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.

  • 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

  • Behavior5/5

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

    No annotations provided, so the description fully bears the burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, never moves funds, and never holds a key, and describes its operation in detail (pulling history, reading live allowances, classifying).

    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 somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value. It front-loads the core purpose and includes necessary detail. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it is well-structured.

    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 output format (prioritized verdict with revoke calldata). It also lists supported chains and explains the deep parameter's effect, making the tool's behavior fully understandable.

    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 description adds no new parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The explanation of each parameter is already present in the schema, meeting the baseline for high 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 the tool audits ERC-20 token approvals for drain risk, specifying it pulls Approval events, reads live allowances, classifies spenders, and returns a verdict. It distinguishes itself from the sibling revoke_plan by focusing on audit rather than execution.

    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 gives clear usage scenarios: before/after interacting with unfamiliar dApps, when a user fears a drainer, or to harden any wallet. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the context is well implied.

    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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly states 'Read-only' and that the user signs themselves, which are key behavioral traits. However, it omits any mention of idempotency or caching, which are minor gaps for a read-only plan generator.

    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, front-loading the main purpose and then providing usage guidance. Every sentence adds value.

    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 the tool's complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description fully explains what is returned (ordered list with token, spender, calldata), the prerequisite relationship, and the read-only nature. It is 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% and each parameter already has a descriptive comment. The description does not add new information beyond what the schema provides, so it is adequate but not exceptional.

    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 the revoke action plan for a wallet, listing risky approvals with details. It uses specific verbs like 'Return' and specifies the output fields (token, spender, calldata). It distinguishes from the sibling tool by stating 'Use after check_approvals'.

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

    Usage Guidelines5/5

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

    The description explicitly says 'Use after check_approvals' and indicates the tool is read-only and the user signs each revoke, providing clear when-to-use and what-not-to-expect context.

    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

approval-guardian MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

approval-guardian 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/Baneado98/approval-guardian'

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