satellite-anomaly-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct phase of anomaly handling: evaluation, novelty detection, simulation, diagnosis, and response actions. Even the two detection-oriented tools are clearly differentiated by method and scope, so there is no ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., evaluate_telemetry, trigger_safe_mode), making the tool set predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools is well-scoped for a satellite anomaly management domain, covering detection, diagnosis, simulation, and response without unnecessary redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers the full anomaly response workflow from detection to safe mode, but lacks explicit recovery or restore operations (e.g., reactivating a component after isolation), which is a minor gap.
Average 3.1/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 14 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, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that a command is issued but does not describe side effects, reversibility, authorization needs, or consequences of the isolate/switch actions. This is insufficient for a mutating command tool.
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, efficiently worded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and avoids redundancy, though it is so brief that it omits critical details. The conciseness itself is good, but substance is minimal.
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?
For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It misses when to use the tool, operational constraints, expected outcomes, and any safety or prerequisite information, making it inadequate for reliable autonomous use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter. It does not define the enum values for 'action' and 'component', nor does it clarify the optional 'satellite_id'. The agent lacks essential meaning for correct invocation.
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 a specific action ('issues command') and clearly specifies the resource (suspect satellite component) with two alternative actions: isolate or switch to redundant subsystem. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that are analytic or safety-mode focused, although 'isolate' could be more precisely defined.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like trigger_safe_mode or evaluate_telemetry. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent without context for appropriate selection.
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 must carry the full burden. It says the tool 'runs' a detector but does not disclose whether it is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. The behavior is essentially restated from the tool name without additional context.
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 sentence that communicates the tool's core function efficiently. No unnecessary words or repetition, though it could arguably be more front-loaded with the purpose.
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?
With no annotations or output schema and only one optional parameter, the description is minimal. It fails to mention the return value or behavior, which is critical for a detection tool. The lack of usage context and alternatives makes it incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke.
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 covers the single parameter sample_window with a description ('Number of past telemetry frames to evaluate'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description itself does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, hence the baseline score of 3.
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 'Runs density-based anomaly detector' and identifies the resource as 'telemetry features out of distribution.' This makes the purpose clear and distinct from generic telemetry evaluation, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like evaluate_telemetry or isolate_fault_component. The context implies it is for anomaly detection, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is provided.
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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, what the output structure looks like, or any prerequisites. 'Generates a summary' implies a non-destructive operation, but this is not explicit and details are missing.
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 front-loads the tool's purpose. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 a modest complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), but the description lacks crucial context such as the structure of the summary, dependencies on other tools (e.g., prior anomaly detection), or when to use it in the operational workflow. An agent would not know what to expect or how to respond to the output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (time_window_minutes has a description, satellite_id does not), but the tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning. It does not explain satellite_id or clarify time_window_minutes beyond the schema. The description's mention of 'satellite anomaly diagnosis' provides context, but no additional semantic value for the parameters.
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 generates a structured satellite anomaly diagnosis summary, with a specific verb ('generates') and resource ('summary'). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'detect_novelty_anomaly' and 'isolate_fault_component' by focusing on the summary/report aspect rather than detection or isolation.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention whether this should follow anomaly detection, whether it requires telemetry data, or any exclusion criteria. The description simply states what it does without contextualizing its place in a workflow.
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, and the description does not disclose side effects, output format, or state changes. While 'simulates' suggests a non-destructive activity, it does not confirm whether it returns data, modifies state, or has other implications.
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 with no unnecessary words. It effectively front-loads the core purpose and lists options in parentheses, all in a compact structure.
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?
With no output schema, the description should explain what the simulation produces or returns. It lacks any mention of output, side effects, or use context, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.
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 description lists the same enum values as the schema, adding context that these are 'satellite fault scenarios'. However, it does not explain the meaning of individual scenario types (e.g., what 'adcs_tumble' entails), leaving the schema's enum as the primary reference.
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 ('Simulates satellite fault scenarios') and lists specific scenario types. This verb is unique among sibling tools like 'detect' or 'isolate', which are distinct actions.
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. The description simply states what it does without explaining use cases, 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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and goal, without disclosing consequences, reversibility, or operational impact—critical for a safe-mode trigger.
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 efficient sentence, front-loaded with the key verb, and avoids unnecessary words. It is concise but lacks additional structural detail that could enhance utility.
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?
For a critical emergency action with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits prerequisites, post-trigger behavior, and operational dependencies, which are essential for safe use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (reason described, satellite_id not). The description adds no parameter details, leaving satellite_id's purpose entirely unclear and not compensating for the coverage gap.
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 uses a specific verb 'Triggers' with a clear resource ('emergency spacecraft safe-mode sequence') and purpose ('protect bus hardware'), making the tool's function distinct from sibling diagnostic or isolation tools.
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 emergency use through words like 'emergency' and 'protect bus hardware', but it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mentions alternatives among the sibling tools.
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 must carry the full burden. It only says 'verifies' without disclosing whether this is a read-only check, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. The term 'security context' is minimal behavioral context.
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?
One concise sentence with the verb and object front-loaded. No redundant or filler content; every word earns its place.
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?
No output schema and no annotations. The description omits return format, error behavior, and parameter roles, which are critical for a verification tool. The sibling tool list provides external context but the description itself is incomplete for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (api_key is described, command_level is not). The description adds no parameter-level detail: it doesn't explain how command_level affects verification or which level is required for sensitive maneuvers, leaving the agent to infer from the enum names alone.
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?
Clear verb 'verifies' + specific resource 'Ground Station security context' + scope 'for executing sensitive safety maneuvers'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like trigger_safe_mode, which actually executes the maneuver, and diagnostic/telemetry tools.
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 phrase 'for executing sensitive safety maneuvers' implies when to use it (before such maneuvers) but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to choose. No exclusions or sibling comparisons are provided.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It names the filters used but does not reveal the outcome of the evaluation, whether the tool is read-only, or if it triggers side effects. It is unclear what 'evaluates' means in terms of return values or downstream actions. This is a significant gap for a tool that could lead to isolation or safe mode.
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 precisely states the action and scope. Every term contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy. It is an excellent model of conciseness.
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?
Despite a 100% schema coverage, the tool lacks an output schema and has no annotations. The description does not explain what the evaluation returns, how results are encoded, or how this tool relates to sibling actions like trigger_safe_mode or isolate_fault_component. An agent would be uncertain about the tool's role in the broader fault-handling workflow. This incomplete context is a significant limitation.
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 with units and meanings. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, but it does not need to. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema is carrying the semantic load.
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 'Evaluates' with a clear resource ('satellite telemetry frame') and three distinctive scoping methods ('safety envelope, space-weather filter, and sensor isolation'). This distinguishes it from siblings like detect_novelty_anomaly or isolate_fault_component, which address different aspects of telemetry handling.
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 usage is implied: one would use this tool to evaluate a telemetry frame. However, there is no explicit 'when to use versus' guidance or mention of alternatives. The description does not state exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough to infer basic usage. It lacks direct comparison to sibling tools.
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:

[![satellite-anomaly-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Litheshan07/satellite-anomaly-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Litheshan07/satellite-anomaly-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![satellite-anomaly-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Litheshan07/satellite-anomaly-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Litheshan07/satellite-anomaly-mcp)

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/Litheshan07/satellite-anomaly-mcp'

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