Skip to main content
Glama
OjasKord

url-safety-validator-mcp

by OjasKord
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.2.14

  • Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and distinct.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    There is only one tool, so naming consistency is perfect. The name check_url follows a clear verb_noun pattern.

    Tool Count4/5

    A single tool is slightly minimal for URL safety validation, but it covers the core functionality well. A few additional tools for batch or domain-level checks could be useful, but the count is reasonable for a focused server.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool provides comprehensive URL checking with verdicts and trust scores. Minor gaps like batch processing or threat intel integration exist, but the core validation workflow is complete.

  • Average 4.3/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 38 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 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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return values (BLOCK/FLAG_AND_PROCEED/ALLOW verdict with trust score and threat categories) and the consequence of not using it. No contradictions. Could mention if results are cached or if there are rate limits.

    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 somewhat long but every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the key instruction. Could be slightly more concise, but well-structured and no fluff.

    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?

    Given no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: when to use, return types, and severity. It omits detailed output structure but mentions verdict, score, and categories. Adequately complete for a simple tool with one parameter.

    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?

    Only one parameter 'url' with 100% schema coverage. The schema description already clarifies accepted formats. The tool description adds context about untrusted sources but no new parameter details beyond schema.

    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's purpose: to check a URL from an untrusted source before acting on it. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('URL'), and provides context about when to call it.

    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?

    The description explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Call this BEFORE your agent fetches, visits, follows, or forwards any URL from an untrusted source...'. It also explains what to do with the verdict, and gives a strong warning about consequences.

    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

url-safety-validator-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

url-safety-validator-mcp 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/OjasKord/url-safety-validator-mcp'

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