Skip to main content
Glama
ClassiFinder

classifinder-mcp

Official
by ClassiFinder
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.4

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: scan detects secrets, redact replaces them. There is no overlap in functionality.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow the consistent pattern 'classifinder_<verb>', using snake_case and descriptive verbs (scan, redact).

    Tool Count4/5

    With only two tools, the set is minimal but appropriate for a focused secrets-handling utility. Could potentially include a 'classify' tool, but current scope is clear.

    Completeness5/5

    The pair covers the full workflow: scanning for secrets and redacting them. No obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.

  • 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
    • 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • 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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the redaction style options and that the output is clean text. It does not detail the detection mechanism or failure cases, but for a redaction tool, this is sufficient transparency.

    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 concise and structured with an 'Args:' section. The first sentence clearly states purpose, followed by usage advice. Minor redundancy (second sentence could be merged), but overall efficient.

    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 no annotations and an output schema (implied), the description covers inputs and return value adequately. It explains the two parameters and provides example redaction styles. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

    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 0%, but the description adds meaning by explaining both parameters: 'text' (the text to redact) and 'redaction_style' with three options and examples. This compensates for the schema's lack of description.

    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's action: 'Scan text and replace all detected secrets with safe placeholders.' It specifies the resource (text) and the outcome (safe to forward to any LLM or logging system). The sibling tool 'classifinder_scan' is distinct, and the description differentiates by focusing on redaction.

    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?

    Explicit guidance: 'Use this before sending user input to a model.' This tells the agent when to use the tool over alternatives. It also implies a workflow context, making selection straightforward.

    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 and discloses that the tool returns structured findings with type, severity, confidence, and remediation guidance. It implies a read-only operation without explicit mutation statements.

    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 with 4 short sentences, front-loading the main action in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

    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 existence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose, parameters, and output type. It could mention that the tool does not modify data, but overall it is complete for a scan tool.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters5/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The input schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate fully. It explains 'text' as the text to scan and 'min_confidence' as a threshold with default, adding crucial meaning beyond the 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 uses specific verb 'scan' and resource 'text for leaked secrets and credentials', and clearly distinguishes from sibling 'classifinder_redact' by focusing on detection rather than redaction.

    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 explicitly states to use this tool for checking API keys, passwords, etc., providing a clear context. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparison to the sibling tool.

    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

classifinder-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

classifinder-mcp 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/ClassiFinder/classifinder-mcp'

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