Skip to main content
Glama
Gowthaman90

mcp-bastion

by Gowthaman90
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.6.3

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools serve completely distinct purposes: one for re-approving changed tools to prevent rug-pull, the other for reporting audit/compliance summaries. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent 'bastion__<verb>' naming pattern (bastion__approve, bastion__compliance), making the action clear and predictable.

    Tool Count4/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels slightly thin, but for a focused governance purpose (rug-pull prevention and compliance reporting), the count is reasonable and not inappropriate.

    Completeness4/5

    The tools cover the core functions: approving changed tools and reporting compliance. Minor gaps exist, such as listing pending approvals or configuring audit settings, but the surface is adequate for the stated purpose.

  • Average 4.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 28 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.

  • 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 burden. It mentions the output is a summary mapped to frameworks, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The behavioral transparency is minimal.

    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 sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the purpose, mapping, and prerequisite efficiently, achieving maximum conciseness.

    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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It states what the tool does and a key requirement. However, it lacks detail on what 'recent tool activity' means or the format of the summary, leaving some ambiguity.

    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?

    The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable given no parameters exist.

    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 it reports an audit/compliance summary of recent tool activity, mapped to specific governance frameworks (NIST AI RMF and OWASP LLM Top 10). It distinguishes from the sibling 'bastion__approve' by focusing on compliance reporting rather than approval actions.

    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 notes that audit must be enabled, providing a clear prerequisite. It implies when to use (when an audit summary is needed), but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives beyond the sibling tool.

    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 provided, so description bears full burden. It clearly explains the effect (clears a block to allow calling the tool again). Could mention if approval requires specific permissions, but sufficiently transparent for the action.

    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 succinct sentences that front-load the purpose and condition. No extraneous 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 low complexity (2 required params, no output schema, single sibling), the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and its effect completely.

    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 baseline 3. Description does not add extra meaning to parameters beyond schema definitions (tool name, server name). No enrichment needed.

    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 re-approves a tool after a definition change, clearing a rug-pull block. It distinguishes from the sibling 'bastion__compliance' by its specific action (re-approve vs. compliance).

    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?

    Explicit condition 'Only do this after reviewing and trusting the change' guides when to use. Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but context is clear.

    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-bastion MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-bastion 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/Gowthaman90/mcp-bastion'

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