Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dsh-cert-mcp

dsh-cert-mcp

by PerryLink
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Get one plugin certification record

get_certification
Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the grade, snapshot date, and five-dimension evidence for one DeepSeek Harness plugin by GitHub owner/repo. Use when you know the plugin and need its certification record.

Instructions

Return the certification record for ONE DeepSeek Harness plugin repository, identified by its GitHub owner and repository name: the letter grade, the snapshot date the grade was measured, and the five-dimension evidence behind it. Use this when you already know which plugin you are asking about and need its grade, or the reasoning that produced it. Use list_certified instead to enumerate every certified plugin, and certification_spec instead to learn what the five dimensions, the grade scale and the veto rule mean. Read-only: it reads a registry snapshot bundled with this server. When the public registry is reachable the snapshot may be refreshed opportunistically; otherwise the embedded snapshot is used. It performs no writes, contacts no service other than that optional refresh, and requires no credentials. Two calls with the same arguments return the same record. If the registry holds no entry for that owner/repo, the result is a plain not-found sentence naming the key it looked up and the snapshot date - it never invents, interpolates or approximates a grade.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesGitHub repository name of the plugin, for example "dsh-auto-review". This is the repository name, not the npm package name. Matched case-insensitively.
ownerYesGitHub owner (user or organisation) of the plugin repository, for example "PerryLink". Matched case-insensitively.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.9
    • changedInput schema / properties / owner / description
      Previous value: -"GitHub owner, e.g. PerryLink"New value: +"GitHub owner (user or organisation) of the plugin repository, for example \"PerryLink\". Matched case-insensitively."
    • changedInput schema / properties / repo / description
      Previous value: -"GitHub repository name, e.g. dsh-auto-review"New value: +"GitHub repository name of the plugin, for example \"dsh-auto-review\". This is the repository name, not the npm package name. Matched case-insensitively."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, yet the description adds genuinely new context: reads a bundled registry snapshot, may opportunistically refresh when the registry is reachable, needs no credentials, is deterministic for identical arguments, and returns a plain not-found sentence rather than an invented grade. The one external-contact caveat is disclosed rather than hidden, which is the opposite of an annotation contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose in the first sentence, then routing, then behavioral caveats. Every sentence carries information, though the refresh/credentials/determinism block is dense enough that the definition runs longer than strictly needed.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does it: it names the letter grade, snapshot date and five-dimension evidence, and specifies the not-found response format. For a two-parameter lookup tool this is 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including case-insensitive matching and the repo-vs-npm-name distinction. The description restates that identification is by GitHub owner and repository name but adds no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Return the certification record for ONE ... plugin repository') and enumerates the returned content (letter grade, snapshot date, five-dimension evidence). It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_certified and certification_spec, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('when you already know which plugin you are asking about and need its grade, or the reasoning that produced it') and names both alternatives with the conditions that select them ('list_certified to enumerate', 'certification_spec to learn the dimensions/grade scale/veto rule'). Nothing is left to inference.

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