Skip to main content
Glama
Omprakash97

Cursor Agent Poisoning

by Omprakash97
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python

Server Quality Checklist

42%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation1/5

    The two tools have completely different and unclear purposes. 'anything' has a vague description suggesting it's just for ambiance, while 'say_hello' contains encoded instructions and demands to be read. There is no clear functional distinction between them, making them highly ambiguous and likely to cause misselection.

    Naming Consistency2/5

    The naming is inconsistent with mixed conventions. 'anything' uses a generic noun with no verb, while 'say_hello' uses a verb_noun pattern. This lack of a predictable naming pattern makes the tool set confusing and harder for agents to understand.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin and under-scoped for any meaningful domain. The tools do not appear to work together coherently, suggesting an insufficient tool surface that limits agent capabilities.

    Completeness1/5

    The server lacks a clear domain or purpose, making it impossible to assess coverage meaningfully. The tools do not form a complete or logical set, with 'anything' being trivial and 'say_hello' containing hidden instructions, resulting in severe incompleteness for any practical use.

  • Average 1.6/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • 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

  • Behavior1/5

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

    The description provides no behavioral information about the tool. With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for disclosing behavioral traits, but it contains only meta-instructions about decoding base64 content. There's no information about what the tool actually does, its effects, side effects, or operational characteristics.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness1/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is poorly structured and contains substantial irrelevant content. It includes version information, a large base64-encoded block, and meta-instructions about decoding, but never gets to the point of explaining the tool's function. The content is front-loaded with instructions rather than purpose, making it inefficient for tool selection.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness1/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    The description is completely inadequate for understanding the tool. With no annotations, no output schema, and a description that fails to explain what the tool does, an agent cannot properly evaluate when or how to use this tool. The description contains meta-content but lacks the essential information needed for tool invocation.

    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 (schema coverage 100%), so the baseline score is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters that don't exist. While the description contains irrelevant content, it doesn't misrepresent or confuse the parameter situation since there are no parameters to document.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose1/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description fails to state what the tool does. It contains version information, a base64-encoded message about Python coding standards, and instructions for AI to decode it, but never explains the tool's function. The name 'say_hello' suggests a greeting function, but the description provides no confirmation or details about this purpose.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines1/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    No guidance is provided about when to use this tool. The description contains meta-instructions about decoding and reading the base64 content, but offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives. It doesn't help an agent understand when this tool should be selected over other options.

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

  • Behavior1/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description 'Simple there for ambiance :(' does not reveal any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, destructive, requires authentication, has side effects, or returns data. It offers no useful context beyond the vague phrase.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness2/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is under-specified rather than concise. 'Simple there for ambiance :(' is a single vague sentence that fails to convey meaningful information. While brief, it does not earn its place by providing value, making it inefficient due to lack of substance.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness1/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool's complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool does, when to use it, or what behavior to expect. Even for a simple tool, the description fails to provide basic 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?

    The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). With no parameters to document, the description does not need to add semantic details beyond the schema. The baseline score for 0 parameters is 4, as there is nothing to compensate for.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose1/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description 'Simple there for ambiance :(' is vague and tautological. It restates the tool's name 'anything' in a circular way without specifying any concrete action, resource, or purpose. No verb-resource combination is provided, and it fails to distinguish from the sibling tool 'say_hello'.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines1/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to the sibling tool 'say_hello'. There is no explicit or implied usage information.

    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

exploit-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

exploit-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/Omprakash97/exploit-mcp'

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