grimoire

by PentHertz

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing categories, gathering checklist material, returning context, detecting environment, fetching full documents, planning installation, searching, assembling topic material, and checking tool installation. There is no overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'grimoire_<descriptive_noun>', making it easy to infer their purpose from the name. The naming is predictable and uniform across the set.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped for a knowledge base assistant. Each tool covers a specific aspect of querying and utilizing offline security resources, without unnecessary duplication or bloat.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers the full workflow: searching, retrieving documents, gathering material for checklists and tutorials, detecting environment, planning installations, and providing context. There are no obvious gaps for an agent to fail.
Average 3.9/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 2 of 3 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 9 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- 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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'List' implying a read operation, but no details on authentication, rate limits, or what 'categories' and 'sources' refer to.
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?
Single sentence, clear and direct. No extraneous words.
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?
Adequate for a parameterless tool with no output schema, but lacks context on what constitutes a 'source category' and how this integrates with sibling tools.
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 input schema has no parameters and coverage is 100%. With 0 parameters, description adds value by naming the specific output: 'available source categories and their sources'.
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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'available source categories and their sources'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like grimoire_search which are more specific.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like grimoire_search and grimoire_fetch_doc suggest different purposes, but conditions for choosing this tool are not explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states the basic function without detailing return format, error handling (e.g., if tool not found), permissions, or side effects. This is insufficient for full transparency.
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 a single sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous information, making it quick to parse.
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 tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description is nearly adequate. However, it omits the return value description, which is critical for an agent to understand the tool's output. A complete description should mention whether it returns a path or boolean, for example.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds 'tool/binary' as context for the 'tool' parameter, but lacks details on expected format, examples, or constraints beyond type string. This provides minimal added value.
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 'Check' and the resource 'tool/binary', specifying both the action (check installation) and the scope (where). It distinguishes from sibling tools that cover categories, environment, documentation, etc., by focusing on installation status.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like grimoire_env or grimoire_search. The description does not mention prerequisites, context dependencies, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool performs 'several targeted searches' and returns snippets with citations, indicating a read-only behavior. However, it lacks specifics on the number of searches, scope, authentication requirements, or potential side effects, falling short of full transparency.
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 at two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core action and output, and the second sentence ties it to a concrete use case. Every word is purposeful with no redundancy or filler.
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 the tool's purpose, input parameters, output type, and usage context. Given no output schema, it adequately explains return values. It lacks details on pagination, limits, or error conditions, but these are not critical for a simple search-like tool, making it fairly complete.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters ('topic' with examples, 'category' as optional filter). The description adds minimal value by stating 'several targeted searches' implying topic usage, but does not elaborate on parameter meanings or relationships beyond schema, earning 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 uses a specific verb ('gather') and resource ('source material for a technical checklist'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like grimoire_search (general search) and grimoire_topic_material. It also states the output format ('documentation snippets with citations') and subsequent use case, providing unambiguous purpose.
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 implies usage for building a checklist by gathering source material, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like grimoire_search or grimoire_topic_material. No exclusions or when-not scenarios are provided, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only describes the return value and usage, omitting side effects, idempotency, authentication needs, rate limits, or any other non-obvious behaviors. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second gives usage guidance. Front-loaded and efficient.
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 two-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers input, output, and usage context. Minor omissions like error handling or file size limits are forgivable given the low complexity.
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 coverage is 100% with meaningful property descriptions. The description reinforces that the parameters come from a grimoire_search result but adds little extra semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 returns the full text of one indexed document, specifying document types (markdown, notebook, PDF). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like grimoire_search by telling the agent to use source+path from a search result, making the purpose and relationship explicit.
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 to use source+path from a grimoire_search result, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not offer when-not-to-use info or alternatives beyond mentioning the predecessor, but the context is sufficient for typical use.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It clearly states it does NOT run anything (safety), returns ordered commands, and outlines the algorithm (RF-Swift script recipe first, then package manager). However, it does not mention error handling or response format (no output schema).
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys purpose, approach, and non-execution side effect.
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 simple schema (1 param, no enums, no output schema), the description covers the main behavior and algorithm. However, it lacks parameter details and any mention of prerequisites or edge cases (e.g., tool already installed). It is adequate but not fully complete.
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 only parameter 'tool' is a string with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what 'tool' expects (e.g., name, path, identifier). It says 'missing tool' implying tool name, but this is insufficient. The parameter meaning should be explicit.
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: 'Resolve HOW a missing tool would be installed' and specifies the ordered approach (RF-Swift script recipe first, then host package manager). It also explicitly states it does not execute anything, distinguishing it from potential installation siblings. The verb 'resolve' and object 'how a missing tool would be installed' are specific and unambiguous.
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 implicitly tells when to use (when you need to know the installation plan without running) but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like grimorie_which (which might check installation status) or other grimorie tools. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or alternative mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It explains what is detected but does not mention potential side effects (likely none), required permissions, or that it is a read-only operation. Provides sufficient but not exhaustive transparency.
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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose and ends with usage guidance, efficiently conveying all necessary information.
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 lists the detected items (container, OS, etc.) but does not explicitly state the return format (e.g., JSON keys). For a simple detection tool, this is nearly complete, as the agent can infer structure from the listed attributes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters (empty object), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info (none needed) but lists the detected environment attributes, effectively describing the output.
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 detects runtime environment details (container, OS, package manager, install script reachability, root/sudo availability) and its purpose is to inform installation decisions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like grimoire_which.
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 to decide how to install tools', providing clear context. It doesn't state when not to use or list alternatives, but it effectively guides the agent towards usage before installation tasks.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Discloses that it runs wide sweep, returns deduped docs with citations. No contradictions; not exhaustive but reasonable.
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: core function, use case, pairing. No wasted words.
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?
No output schema, but description specifies returns 'deduped matching docs with citations'. Sufficient for a simple tool with two parameters.
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 coverage is 100%, so schema already describes parameters. Description adds context about 'broad reading set' but no extra detail on parameters 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?
Description clearly states it assembles a broad reading set for a topic, runs related searches, and returns deduped matching docs with citations. It distinguishes from siblings by pairing with grimoire_fetch_doc.
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 'Use this to write a complete, source-backed tutorial' and pairs with grimoire_fetch_doc. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It indicates a read-only operation returning data, but does not mention any prerequisites, side effects, or required permissions. For a simple context retrieval, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 with no extraneous words. The first sentence lists what is returned, and the second gives clear usage direction. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and how to use it. It explains the content and importance of reading it first, which is sufficient for a zero-parameter context tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no information. The description adds significant value by detailing the contents of the returned context (targets, interfaces, hardware, etc.), meeting the baseline of 4 and exceeding it with rich output 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 the tool returns engagement context for the assessment, listing specific items (operator-declared targets/IPs, interfaces, hardware, parameters, host-detected devices). This distinctly sets it apart from sibling tools like grimoire_search or grimoire_env.
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 instructs to 'Read this first and tailor every step and command to the actual targets and hardware in scope,' providing clear when-to-use context. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling list implies this is the primary context retrieval tool.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It fully discloses that the tool performs a read-only search across local knowledge bases, that results are ranked, and what the return fields are (source, category, path, snippet). It lacks details like exact result size limits or pagination behavior, but these are minor omissions for a search 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?
The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence defines the action and scope, the second provides usage guidance and return details. Every word serves a 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 search tool with 3 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. It references sibling tools for category lookup and gives concrete examples. No gaps remain for correct 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?
Parameter schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already defines each parameter. The description adds value by providing usage examples (e.g., 'kerberoast') and linking category to a sibling tool, as well as describing the return format which gives context to the parameters. This exceeds the baseline of 3 for full schema 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 uses specific verb-resource pairing ('Full-text search across every indexed offline security knowledge base') and lists concrete sources (HackTricks, PayloadsAllTheThings, etc.), making the tool's scope crystal clear. It distinguishes from siblings like grimoire_categories and grimoire_fetch_doc by describing its search function.
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 states 'Use this to ground answers and checklists in real documentation,' providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or reference alternative siblings like grimoire_context for broader searches, so exclusions are missing.
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:

[![grimoire MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/PentHertz/grimoire/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/PentHertz/grimoire)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![grimoire MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/PentHertz/grimoire/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/PentHertz/grimoire)

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/PentHertz/grimoire'

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