Skip to main content
Glama
Nizoka

zipnative-mcp

Verify archive integrity (one call, never throws for archive problems)

verify_zip
Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify ZIP archive integrity by validating the central directory and each entry's CRC-32 and size without extraction, and report per-entry status and overall verdict.

Instructions

Deep verification in one call — zipnative's verifyZip report verbatim: eager structural validation, then every entry's CRC-32 / size / local-header agreement. ok is true when the structure is valid AND every verifiable entry passed. This tool NEVER fails for a problem with the archive: a structural refusal lands in error {code: ZIP_*, message}; an unverifiable entry is skipped ('encrypted' | 'stream-only-codec') and does not fail the archive, while an entry whose method has no codec here (anything but 0 store / 8 deflate) is reported FAILED, not skipped — the engine's verdict verbatim. Only caller mistakes (bad limits, bad input) are isError. entries:'failed' keeps the rows you act on; verbosity:'summary' keeps the verdict + counts. Verify before you trust: run it on any archive from an untrusted source before extract_zip.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsNoDot-path projection applied after verbosity (e.g. ['entryCount', 'entries.name']); array segments map over elements; unmatched paths are reported in _meta.unmatchedFields.
limitsNoOverride zipnative's named security bounds for this call (CWE-400 / CWE-409 guards). Every key is optional; absent keys keep the engine defaults (maxEntries 100000, maxEntryUncompressedSize 1 GiB, maxTotalUncompressedSize 8 GiB, maxCompressionRatio 1024, maxNameBytes 4096, maxExtraFieldBytes 65535, maxCommentBytes 65535, maxCentralDirectoryBytes 256 MiB). Values above the operator ceilings (ZIPNATIVE_MCP_MAX_UNCOMPRESSED_BYTES, ZIPNATIVE_MCP_MAX_ENTRIES) are refused with LIMIT_CEILING_EXCEEDED. Raise a bound for trusted input only.
entriesNoWhich per-entry rows to return: 'all' (default), only 'failed' (ok:false, not skipped), only 'skipped', or 'none' (verdict + counts only).all
zipPathNoRelative path of an archive inside the ZIPNATIVE_MCP_OUTPUT_DIR sandbox (no absolute paths, no '..'; container extensions only: .zip .jar .docx .epub …). Exclusive with zipBase64. Lets a create/modify → verify/extract chain avoid re-sending the bytes.
verbosityNo'summary' returns only the scalar verdict fields (drops arrays and payloads) — the token-frugal form.full
zipBase64NoThe archive bytes as base64 (exactly once; a data: URI prefix is tolerated). Exclusive with zipPath. Decoded size ≤ 128 MiB.
maxEntriesNoCap on returned rows (the counts always cover every entry); `entriesTruncated` flags a cut.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okNo
errorNoThe structural refusal when the archive could not even be opened (frozen ZIP_* code + engine message), else null.
entriesNo
entryCountNo
diagnosticsNoNon-fatal conformance concerns the engine raised while parsing or writing (de-duplicated by code + entry, at most 200). Empty for a clean archive. Codes: ZIP_PREPENDED_DATA, ZIP_MULTIPLE_EOCD, ZIP_NAME_MISMATCH, ZIP_UNICODE_PATH_CONFLICT, ZIP_INVALID_UTF8_NAME, ZIP_DUPLICATE_NAME, ZIP_EXTRA_FIELD_MALFORMED, ZIP_ZIP64_EXTRA_IGNORED, ZIP_TIMESTAMP_NOT_PINNED, ZIP_NONDETERMINISTIC_CODEC, ZIP_DEAD_BYTES_RATIO.
failedCountNoEntries with a CRC / size / local-header mismatch.
skippedCountNoEntries that could not be verified (encrypted, stream-only codec).
verifiedCountNoEntries that passed every check.
diagnosticCountNosummary only: number of diagnostics.
entriesTruncatedNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: it never throws for archive problems, error placement, skipped vs failed entry semantics, the isError-only-for-caller-mistakes rule, and the effect of entries:'failed' and verbosity:'summary'. This fully discloses the tool's safety and edge-case 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?

The description is dense but every sentence adds operational value: core purpose, failure semantics, entry-status nuance, and a usage directive. It is front-loaded with the main verdict. A little longer than strictly necessary, but no filler—the tradeoff between length and completeness is well balanced.

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-parameter tool with nested objects, enums, and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: when it fails, how to interpret results, and how to keep output frugal. The presence of an output schema relieves the description from detailing return fields. Minor gaps remain (e.g., no explicit mention of default verbosity vs summary), but these are inferable from the schema.

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% (all 7 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by explaining the interaction between entries and verbosity, the security implications of raising limits, and the exclusive relationship between zipPath and zipBase64. It also frames the output semantics (failed vs skipped) that affect parameter choice. Slightly above baseline because it contextualizes parameters beyond their literal schemas.

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?

States a specific verb (verify), resource (archive integrity), and scope (eager structural validation plus per-entry CRC-32/size/local-header agreement). It also defines the success criterion (`ok` true) and distinguishes from extraction by naming extract_zip, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'run it on any archive from an untrusted source before extract_zip.' It also clarifies the tool never fails for archive problems, so it is safe for untrusted input. However, it does not name alternatives like scan_zip_forward or list_zip_entries for non-verification needs, leaving some routing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

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/Nizoka/zipnative-mcp'

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