parental-control

by Gonzih

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.2.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool addresses a distinct concern: message safety classification, interaction logging, approval resolution, pending list retrieval, profile updates, and risk summaries. There is no functional overlap or ambiguity between tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_message, log_interaction, resolve_approval). Naming is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools cover the core parental control workflows (monitoring, approvals, risk, profile configuration) without bloat or missing essential functions.
Completeness4/5
The set covers the main lifecycle: message checking, interaction logging, approval actions, pending queue, profile updates, and risk reports. A minor gap is the lack of a direct tool to fetch a full message or interaction history beyond the risk summary, but this is a workable limitation.
Average 3.6/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 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.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get', which implies a read-only operation, but does not clarify side effects, permissions, response format, or any potential failures. No behavioral traits beyond the basic action are disclosed.
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 wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it lacks structured information about the output or usage details.
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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the return value contains. It mentions 'risk summary and spiral detection score' but does not elaborate on the structure, range, or meaning. Usage guidance and parameter context are also missing, leaving the description 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?
The input schema already provides full coverage for both parameters (hours and profileId), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema specifies, such as units, defaults, or how 'hours' and 'profileId' affect the result.
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 the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'conversation risk summary and spiral detection score' for a child profile. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_message or log_interaction, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_message or list_pending. The phrase 'for a child profile' provides minimal context but does not state any conditions, prerequisites, 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?
With no annotations available, the description must fully disclose behavior. It identifies the action as approving or denying a held message, but omits critical details such as required permissions, side effects, reversibility, error behavior, or what happens after resolution. This is insufficient for a state-changing 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 extremely concise with two short sentences, each adding value: the first states the tool's purpose and the second gives invocation context. No wasted words or redundancy.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover outcomes and prerequisites. It does not mention what happens on success or failure, nor any return values or post-resolution effects. The minimal text is not enough for a mutation tool in a workflow context.
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?
The input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters, including the enum for decision, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics 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 a specific action (approve/deny) on a specific resource (a held message). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_pending by indicating this resolves an approval rather than listing them.
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 mentions it is called by a parent or via bot command, implying usage in an approval workflow, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.
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?
The description states the tool logs data, which implies a write operation, and adds context ('for pattern analysis') but does not disclose side effects, persistence behavior, or whether it appends to existing history. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but provides only minimal behavioral insight.
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 that is concise and contains no wasted words. It efficiently states the action and purpose.
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 simple tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description gives the core action and rationale but does not explain return values, side effects, or any prerequisites. Given the overall simplicity, it is minimally adequate but leaves several contextual gaps.
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 does not add additional meaning beyond what is in the schema; it only mentions 'interaction' and 'conversation history' which loosely map to the parameters but add no new details.
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 logs an interaction to conversation history for pattern analysis, using a specific verb ('log') and resource ('interaction to conversation history'). It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on checking messages, resolving approvals, listing pending items, updating profiles, or getting risk summaries.
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 purpose implies usage when an interaction needs to be recorded for later analysis, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It is only minimally implied by the description.
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. It states 'Update child profile settings' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the update is a merge or overwrite, any permission requirements, side effects, or what the response looks like. This is a mutation tool with minimal transparency.
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 redundant words. It efficiently conveys the purpose and key scope without waste.
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 description is adequate for a simple update tool, but it lacks information about return values, preconditions (e.g., profile existence), and behavior when partial settings are provided. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, additional context 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?
Schema coverage is 100% (both profileId and settings have descriptions), but those descriptions are generic. The tool description adds meaning by listing example fields ('age, restrictions, notification channel'), which helps the agent understand what to place in the nested `settings` object.
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 identifies the tool's action: 'Update child profile settings' with specific fields (age, restrictions, notification channel). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_message, log_interaction, resolve_approval, list_pending, and get_risk_summary, which serve different purposes.
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 that this tool is for updating child profile settings, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear, but no specific usage guidance is given beyond the basic action.
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?
The verb 'list' suggests a read-only operation, but because no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, nor does it mention pagination, sorting, or output format. The transparency is 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?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately states the action and resource. It is front-loaded, with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary details.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose. However, it leaves minor gaps such as what the returned list contains and the exact criteria for 'pending'. These are not critical for basic usage, so a score of 4 is justified.
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?
The input schema has a single optional parameter (profileId) with a clear description, giving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add any parameter-specific details, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness. The baseline 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 'List' and clearly identifies the resource ('messages currently held for parent approval'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_message and resolve_approval, which operate on individual messages or perform approvals.
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 retrieving messages that are pending approval, but it does not explicitly instruct when to use this tool versus alternatives such as resolve_approval or check_message. There are no exclusions or alternative pointers, so the usage context is only implied.
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 bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that it returns a classification decision with specific values, but it does not clarify whether the tool enforces the decision or merely recommends it, nor does it mention side effects like persistence or triggering approval workflows. This leaves ambiguity about what happens after classification.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and output. Every word is purposeful, with no redundant explanation or filler.
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 is concise and explains the main behavior and return decision values. Given the tool's role in a safety pipeline and the absence of an output schema, it could be more explicit about whether the decision is a recommendation or an enforced action, and how it ties into approval workflows. However, the core semantics are covered.
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?
The input schema already covers all parameter meanings with 100% coverage, including role, content, and profileId defaults. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the 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 uses a specific verb 'Classify' and resource 'a message for safety', and specifies the return decision categories (allow/notify/block/hold_for_approval), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle logging, approvals, and profile updates.
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 phrase 'before it reaches or comes from the child' provides clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context implies it is the classification gate for message safety, which is sufficient for basic usage 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

Copy to your README.md:

[![parental-control MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Gonzih/parental-control/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Gonzih/parental-control)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![parental-control MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Gonzih/parental-control/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Gonzih/parental-control)

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/Gonzih/parental-control'

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