Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
RugSnare

RugSnare

by Paraphern
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

pins_report

Report pinned MCP servers and tally approved, unapproved, and shadowed tools to audit contract drift; read-only.

Instructions

Report the RugSnare pin store of this project: which MCP servers are pinned, how many tools are approved, unapproved, or shadowed across servers. Read-only.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "pins_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.4.2

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does declare 'Read-only', which is the key safety trait for a status tool. However it says nothing about cost, caching, auth requirements, or freshness of the reported counts, leaving gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence names the resource first, then the payload, then the read-only guarantee. No filler and nothing that fails to earn its place.

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 simple, no-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the returned information (pinned servers plus approved/unapproved/shadowed counts), which is enough for an agent to know what it will get back. Only the sibling relationship and any freshness/cost caveats are missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and there is no parameter semantics to add. Baseline of 4 applies for a no-param tool.

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?

States a specific verb (report) and a clearly scoped resource (the RugSnare pin store of this project), then enumerates the contents: pinned MCP servers and counts of approved/unapproved/shadowed tools. It is easy to distinguish from the sibling drift_feed_status by resource, though it never explicitly names or contrasts with that sibling.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative drift_feed_status or when a pin-store report is the right call. Usage is only implied by the read-only reporting nature of the tool.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools