Skip to main content
Glama
Th3Circle-app

provekit-mcp

by Th3Circle-app
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation4/5

    The two tools are clearly distinguished by their input type: scan_code takes a code snippet, while scan_path takes a file path. Though both perform similar security scanning, the descriptions make the boundary unambiguous, so an agent should rarely misselect.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent 'scan_<target>' pattern with snake_case, making the naming predictable and intuitive. The verb-noun structure is uniform and there are no stylistic deviations.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for a security scanning purpose. The count is borderline—not egregiously small, but it offers only the most basic scanning operations and lacks the breadth one might expect.

    Completeness2/5

    The server only supports scanning a snippet or a single file, with no ability to scan directories, repositories, or multiple files at once. This is a significant gap for a security scanner, as users would likely need batch or recursive scanning to be practical.

  • Average 4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 4 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, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'No filesystem access', and explains the output behavior ('Returns findings sorted by severity') and the role of the filename parameter. It does not mention potential side effects, but for a scan tool, the absence of filesystem access implies a safe, read-only operation.

    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 concise sentences, each earning its place: purpose, output, and key limitation/parameter clarification. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

    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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the core information: what it does, what it returns (findings sorted by severity), and a key limitation (no filesystem access). The missing detail is the structure of findings, but the description is otherwise sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

    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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'filename' explicitly as 'an optional label used for reporting', but for 'code' it relies on the overall tool description ('Scan a snippet of code') to infer its purpose. This partial compensation is helpful but incomplete, especially for the required 'code' parameter.

    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 action and scope: 'Scan a snippet of code for leaked secrets and insecure patterns (OWASP Top 10).' It also mentions returning findings sorted by severity, giving a complete picture. This distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on 'snippet' and explicitly stating 'No filesystem access', which contrasts with scan_path.

    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 code snippets and excludes filesystem scanning via 'No filesystem access', but it does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use scan_path for filesystem scanning'. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, so it does not fully meet the 'when-to-use vs alternatives' criterion.

    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 provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that paths must be relative to the workspace root and that escaping paths are refused, which is valuable. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor describe the output or error behavior beyond path rejection.

    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 compact and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a critical constraint. Every sentence earns its place 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?

    For a simple single-file scan tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the key path constraint. It could additionally mention typical output format or error cases, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

    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 schema only lists 'path' as a string, but the description enriches it by specifying it must be relative to the workspace root and that escaping paths are refused. This gives the parameter meaning beyond the raw schema, compensating for the 0% schema description 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 scans a single source file for leaked secrets and insecure patterns. The verb 'scan' and specific resource 'single source file' make the purpose distinct, especially against the sibling scan_code.

    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 scanning a specific file, but does not explicitly compare to scan_code or state when to prefer one over the other. There are no exclusions beyond the path constraint, which is more a security limitation than a usage guideline.

    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

provekit-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

provekit-mcp 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/Th3Circle-app/provekit-mcp'

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