Skip to main content
Glama
Ev3lynx727

mcp-shellcheck

by Ev3lynx727
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

83%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.2.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one performs script analysis, the other provides server info. No ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names follow the pattern 'shellcheck' with an optional suffix ('shellcheck', 'shellcheck_info'), maintaining consistency.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, it is below the typical 3-15 range for a well-scoped server, but it covers the essential functionality of a shellcheck service.

    Completeness4/5

    The core lifecycle is covered (run analysis and check capability), but a tool to list available rules or get detailed help is missing, which is a minor gap.

  • Average 4.6/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 19 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.

  • 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.

  • View related servers

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?

    No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return format (structured JSON with line/column/code/message/severity) and lists common error codes. Implicitly non-destructive but could explicitly state read-only 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?

    Well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, supported shells, returns, common codes). The list of error codes is verbose but helpful. Front-loaded with critical info.

    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 7-param tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter guidance, and output format. Lacks detailed output structure but adequate for standard linter output. Sibling tool not referenced but not necessary.

    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 covers all 7 params (100% coverage). Description adds value by explaining exclude/suppression, severity filtering, and listing common error codes. Enhances understanding beyond schema descriptions.

    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 runs ShellCheck on shell scripts to find bugs, stylistic issues, and potential errors. It distinguishes from the sibling 'shellcheck_info' by focusing on analysis execution.

    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?

    Explicitly specifies when to use (reviewing scripts, validating CI, debugging), preference over manual inspection, and when to avoid (many large scripts for local bulk analysis). Provides actionable 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, description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is cheap and does no script processing, implying no side effects. However, could be more explicit about read-only nature and output format. Still, good coverage.

    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?

    Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value – purpose, usage conditions, alternative. No wasted words.

    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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it does, when to use it, and how it compares to sibling. Output format is implicit from version/capability info.

    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?

    Zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds meaning by stating what info is returned (version and capability). Baseline 4 is appropriate with no parameters needing explanation.

    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 'Get ShellCheck version and server capability info' – specific verb (get) and resource (ShellCheck version and capability). Distinguishes from sibling 'shellcheck' by noting it's for info, not analysis.

    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?

    Explicitly provides when to use (verifying installation, checking available versions), when to prefer over sibling (cheaper, no script processing), and when to avoid (need analysis). This is exemplary 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

mcp-shellcheck MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-shellcheck 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/Ev3lynx727/mcp-shellcheck'

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