Skip to main content
Glama
Seiya-wasabi

mcp-server-security-snapshot

by Seiya-wasabi
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have completely distinct purposes: demo_security_snapshot provides a static example for testing, while scan_security_headers performs an active scan of a URL's security headers. There is no functional overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern (demo_security_snapshot, scan_security_headers) using snake_case. The verbs 'demo' and 'scan' clearly indicate their different actions, maintaining perfect consistency throughout the set.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels severely under-scoped for a security snapshot domain. While the tools are distinct, a security-focused server would typically need more operations (e.g., historical scans, configuration management, or additional scan types) to provide comprehensive coverage.

    Completeness2/5

    The toolset is highly incomplete for security snapshot functionality. It lacks core operations like retrieving past scans, managing scan configurations, or covering other security aspects beyond HTTP headers. Agents will face dead ends when trying to perform typical security audit workflows.

  • Average 4.5/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • 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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: the tool scans public URLs, lists specific security checks performed, and importantly reveals the cost ('Costs 0.05 USDC per call') and payment mechanism ('paid automatically from the configured wallet'). It doesn't mention rate limits, error handling, or response format details.

    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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first explains what the tool does and lists checks, the second provides usage context and cost information. Every element serves a clear purpose with zero 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?

    For a single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context: purpose, specific checks, cost information, and usage guidance. It could be more complete by describing the return format or what 'status' means, but given the tool's relative simplicity, it's mostly adequate.

    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 schema description coverage is 100% with the single 'url' parameter well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('scan', 'return') and resources ('public URL', 'HTTP security header status'), and lists 11 specific checks performed. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'demo_security_snapshot' by specifying this is for auditing security hygiene before improvements.

    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?

    The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('to audit a website's security hygiene before recommending improvements'), which clearly differentiates it from the sibling tool 'demo_security_snapshot' (implied to be a different type of security assessment).

    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 provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it returns a pre-baked example (not real-time data), requires no payment (financial aspect), and is for testing/demonstration purposes. It lacks details on rate limits or authentication needs, but covers core functionality adequately.

    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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds essential context in the second, with zero wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing critical information without fluff.

    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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly complete: it explains the purpose, usage context, and key behavioral aspects. It could slightly improve by mentioning the output format details or any constraints, but it's sufficient for an agent to use it correctly in most scenarios.

    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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, and the baseline for this case is 4, as it efficiently avoids redundancy while the schema handles the structure.

    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 specific verbs ('Returns a pre-baked example security snapshot') and resources ('security snapshot'), and distinguishes it from its sibling by explicitly noting it's for testing/demonstration without payment versus the likely production-oriented 'scan_security_headers'.

    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?

    It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('to test your integration or demonstrate the output format without spending USDC'), which implicitly suggests alternatives like the sibling tool for actual scans requiring payment, making it clear for agent selection.

    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

mcp-server-security-snapshot MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-server-security-snapshot 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/Seiya-wasabi/mcp-server-security-snapshot'

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