mcp-audit

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is confusion between `list_directory` and `list_directory_with_sizes` (one includes sizes, the other not), and the deprecated `read_file` alongside `read_text_file` adds ambiguity.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most names follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., `create_directory`, `read_text_file`), but `directory_tree` is a noun phrase and `list_allowed_directories` is verbose, breaking full consistency.
Tool Count5/5
With 14 tools covering creation, reading, writing, editing, moving, searching, and listing, the count is well-suited for a file system utility without being excessive or sparse.
Completeness2/5
The tool set lacks critical operations like file deletion and copying, which are expected for comprehensive file management. This gap may cause agents to fail when needing to remove files.
Average 4.1/5 across 14 of 14 tools scored. Lowest: 3.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 92 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on June 11, 2026
- 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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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.
View related servers

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?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint; description adds access constraint ('Only works within allowed directories') and output structure details (children arrays, indentation). No performance or depth limits mentioned.
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?
Four sentences, each adding value: purpose, output detail, structure specifics, constraint. No wasted words.
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?
Output schema covers return values, but parameter semantics are absent. For a moderate-complexity tool with two parameters, description is mostly complete except for parameter details.
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 coverage is 0% and description does not explain the two parameters (path, excludePatterns) beyond what the schema already provides.
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 states 'Get a recursive tree view' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_directory (flat) and list_directory_with_sizes, and details output structure.
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?
Implies usage for recursive tree view but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives among 14 sibling tools.
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?
Annotations already indicate destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true). The description adds valuable behavioral details: line-based edits replacing exact sequences, returns a git-style diff, and directory restriction. No contradiction with annotations.
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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then adding key details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Basic aspects are covered (purpose, behavior, range restriction, output format), but missing common contextual information like error handling (e.g., what happens if oldText not found) or prerequisite knowledge. The existence of an output schema partially mitigates this.
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 only 33% (only dryRun has a description). The tool description adds no additional parameter explanation beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the low coverage.
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 with a specific verb 'edit' and resource 'text file.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like write_file (which overwrites) and read_file (which reads).
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 mentions a restriction (works only within allowed directories) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like write_file for partial edits. No exclusion or comparison context provided.
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?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that it reads the file 'as text' and supports partial reading via head/tail parameters. This goes beyond the annotations, though it omits details about output format or size limits.
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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and immediately followed by the deprecation notice. No wasted words.
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 the tool is deprecated and has a recommended replacement (read_text_file), the description suffices. The output schema exists to document return values, so no need to describe them. However, it doesn't explain what read_text_file offers differently, but for a deprecated tool this is acceptable.
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?
The input schema has 3 parameters, with 67% description coverage (tail and head have descriptions, path does not). The description does not add meaning to the path parameter beyond stating the tool reads files; it fails to compensate for the missing schema description. Tail and head are already well-described in the schema.
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 clearly states it reads the complete contents of a file as text, and explicitly marks it as deprecated. This distinguishes it from siblings like read_text_file, though it doesn't explain the difference. The purpose is well-defined.
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 deprecation notice directly tells the agent not to use this tool and to use read_text_file instead. This provides clear guidance on when to use (rarely) and why. No further context is given for when to use the deprecated version, but that is acceptable.
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?
Annotations already indicate destructive behavior and non-readonly. The description adds context about overwriting without warning, proper encoding, and directory restrictions, which goes beyond annotations.
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?
Three sentences front-load the purpose, then add warnings and constraints. No excess wording, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate when-to-use).
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 the simple tool and existing annotations, the description covers purpose, destructive behavior, encoding, and allowed directories. Missing error or return value details, but output schema likely handles that.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only hints at content encoding but does not elaborate on path format or content constraints. Both parameters remain underspecified.
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 creates or overwrites files, distinguishing it from sibling tools like edit_file which modifies partially. It also mentions the directory constraint, which sets scope.
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 warns about overwriting but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like edit_file or create_directory. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice is given.
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?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it only works within allowed directories and outputs results with distinguishing prefixes. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.
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 three sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, output format, and constraint. No redundant or unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, return values need not be explained, but the description covers output format. However, it does not state whether the listing is recursive or just immediate children (a key distinction from directory_tree) or if hidden files are included. More context would improve completeness.
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 single 'path' parameter has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description mentions 'specified path' and adds the constraint of allowed directories, but does not clarify the expected format (e.g., absolute vs relative, trailing slash) or whether glob patterns are accepted.
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 action ('Get a detailed listing'), the resource ('files and directories'), and the scope ('in a specified path'). It also specifies the output format with [FILE] and [DIR] prefixes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like directory_tree or list_directory_with_sizes.
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 indicates the tool is 'essential for understanding directory structure and finding specific files,' giving a general use case. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over siblings like directory_tree or list_directory_with_sizes, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.
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?
Annotations already indicate read-only. The description adds that it returns base64 and MIME type, and restricts to allowed directories. No contradiction with annotations.
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 sentences, no filler. Every sentence adds value: what it reads, what it returns, and a constraint.
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?
With an output schema presumed to document return values, the description covers purpose, outputs, and constraints adequately for a simple tool. Minor gaps like supported file formats are missing but acceptable.
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 has 0% description coverage for the 'path' parameter. The description only notes the allowed-directories constraint, not the format or expected value of the path. More detail is 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?
The description clearly specifies reading image or audio files and returning base64 plus MIME type. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'read_file' (generic) and 'read_text_file' (text) by targeting media files.
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 mentions a constraint ('only works within allowed directories') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are provided.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no need to repeat. Description adds the allowed directories constraint, which is useful behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.
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?
Three concise sentences, each adding value. No redundant or misleading information. Front-loaded with the primary action.
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 low complexity (1 param, readonly, output schema exists), description covers metadata details and directory restriction. Missing error handling for nonexistent paths, but still adequate for a simple tool.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the path parameter. It only implicitly indicates it's a file or directory path, missing specifics like format or constraints. Minimal compensation for the schema 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?
Clearly states it retrieves file/directory metadata and lists specific attributes (size, creation time, etc.). Distinguishes from sibling tools like read_file by noting it does not read content.
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?
Explicitly says when to use: for understanding file characteristics without reading content. Includes constraint 'Only works within allowed directories'. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or named alternatives, 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.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that the search recurses, returns full paths, and is limited to allowed directories, which are useful behavioral traits beyond the annotation.
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 concise (4 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or vague language.
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 the tool's complexity, the presence of an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: search mechanism, glob patterns, scope. It is adequate but could include more detail on results formatting or limitations.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains pattern and path with examples, but completely omits excludePatterns, a parameter with a default. Only partial coverage of 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 it recursively searches files and directories matching a glob pattern, using action verbs and specific resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_directory by focusing on pattern-based search and returning full paths.
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 gives usage context ('Great for finding files when you don't know their exact location') and provides pattern examples. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives for specific cases.
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?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint: true), the description adds behavioral details such as output format with [FILE] and [DIR] prefixes and scope restriction to allowed directories. No contradictions with annotations.
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 concise with four sentences, front-loaded with the main action. No redundant information, every sentence adds value.
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?
The description covers purpose, usage context, behavioral traits, and scope. With an output schema present, it does not need to detail return values. Minor gaps in error handling or prerequisites, but sufficient for a simple listing 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?
Schema description coverage is 50% (only sortBy has a description). The tool description adds context for the 'path' parameter by noting the scope, but does not fully compensate for the missing schema description. Hence a baseline score of 3.
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 that the tool gets a detailed listing of files and directories including sizes, and distinguishes from sibling 'list_directory' by mentioning detailed listing and size information. It uses specific verbs and resource names.
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 provides context for when to use the tool (understanding directory structure, finding specific files) and notes a constraint (only works within allowed directories). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings.
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?
Describes failure condition on existing destination, which is critical behavioral information. Annotations are neutral, so description adds useful context beyond them.
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?
Three sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with primary action. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Covers essential behavior and constraints. Output schema exists but not detailed; however, the tool is straightforward, so the description is sufficiently complete.
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 has no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), but the tool description clarifies that both source and destination are paths and must be within allowed directories, adding meaning.
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?
Clearly states it moves/renames files and directories, with a single operation. Differentiates from siblings like create_directory, write_file, etc., which serve different purposes.
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?
Explains key behaviors: fails if destination exists, works across directories, and sources must be within allowed directories. Does not explicitly contrast with alternatives but implies correct usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds context beyond annotations: nested directory creation, silent success if exists, and restriction to allowed directories. Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructive behavior; description reinforces and expands.
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 four sentences, each adding value: purpose, capability, behavior, use case, constraint. No redundant or irrelevant information.
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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, annotations present, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, behavior, constraints, and use cases adequately. No major gaps.
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 sole parameter 'path' has no schema description coverage (0%). The description mentions 'only works within allowed directories' but does not specify path format, allowed directories list, or how to specify nested paths. Partial compensation but insufficient detail.
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 action: 'Create a new directory or ensure a directory exists.' It specifies the ability to create nested directories and the silent success on existing directories, distinguishing it from siblings like write_file or move_file.
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 gives usage scenarios ('Perfect for setting up directory structures for projects or ensuring required paths exist'), implying when to use. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, and the description adds that subdirectories are also accessible, giving useful behavioral context beyond the annotation.
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 concise sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose.
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?
For a parameter-less, read-only tool with an output schema, the description fully explains what is returned and why to use it.
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?
There are 0 parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add param info, and schema coverage is 100%.
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 verb 'returns' and the resource 'list of directories that this server is allowed to access', and distinguishes from siblings like 'list_directory' by focusing on allowed directories.
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 advises use 'before trying to access files' to understand available directories, providing clear context. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives but is sufficiently directive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds key behavioral traits beyond annotations: 'Failed reads for individual files won't stop the entire operation' and 'Only works within allowed directories'. Annotations only provide readOnlyHint, so description significantly enhances understanding.
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?
Four sentences covering action, efficiency benefit, failure behavior, and directory constraint. No redundant information, and the most critical details come first.
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?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description provides essential operational context: multiple file handling, partial failures, and access limitations. With simple parameters and annotations, it adequately prepares the agent.
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 already has 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'paths' parameter. Tool description does not add new semantic meaning beyond reinforcing the allowed directories constraint, meeting baseline expectations.
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 'Read the contents of multiple files simultaneously', specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_file' by emphasizing batch operation and efficiency for multiple files.
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?
Explicitly says 'more efficient than reading files one by one when you need to analyze or compare multiple files', guiding when to use. However, it does not directly name alternative tools like 'read_file' for single files, though siblings are listed for context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: handles various encodings, provides detailed error messages, operates as text regardless of extension, and restricts to allowed directories. No contradictions.
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 concise with 4 purposeful sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Each sentence adds unique value without redundancy, creating a well-structured and efficient definition.
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?
For a 3-param tool with an output schema, the description is thorough: covers purpose, usage context, parameters, encoding, error handling, and directory restrictions. No gaps remain for a typical use case.
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 67% (path undocumented). The description adds meaning for head and tail by explaining their line-count behavior, matching schema. For path, it adds context about file system and allowed directories, partially compensating for missing schema description.
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 'Read the complete contents of a file from the file system as text' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_media_file' and 'read_multiple_files' by emphasizing single file and text handling.
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 says 'Use this tool when you need to examine the contents of a single file' and implies alternatives through sibling context. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use but provides clear guidance on using head/tail for partial reads.
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:

[![mcp-audit MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/P4ST4S/mcp-audit/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/P4ST4S/mcp-audit)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-audit MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/P4ST4S/mcp-audit/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/P4ST4S/mcp-audit)

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/P4ST4S/mcp-audit'

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