Control-PromotionMCP

by ValentinoWang

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: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation: checking symlinked paths, evaluating control candidates, inspecting projects, rendering reports, routing failure classes, and validating two different file types. No overlap in purposes.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., check_ssot_links, evaluate_control_candidate). The naming convention is uniform across the set.
Tool Count5/5
7 tools is appropriate for a specialized domain like control promotion. It is neither too few to be trivial nor too many to be overwhelming.
Completeness4/5
The tools cover the core workflow of checking, evaluating, inspecting, rendering, routing, and validating. A minor gap is the lack of explicit creation or update operations for control candidates, but the set is largely complete for its stated purpose.
Average 2.7/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 9 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 4, 2026
- 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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no behavioral context. It does not explain what validation entails (e.g., checks performed, error reporting), which is critical for a validation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is concise at one sentence, it is under-specified. Important details are omitted, making it insufficient for effective tool selection and use. Brevity should not come at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a project adapter is, what 'validate' means, or what the output (success/failure, errors) looks like. The agent cannot use this tool reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no information about the 'path' parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent has no clue what path refers to (file path, directory, format?). The parameter's type and requirement are given, but semantics are missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (validate) and resource (project adapter file), but it lacks specificity to differentiate from siblings like 'evaluate_control_candidate' or 'inspect_project'. The term 'project adapter file' is not defined, making it vague.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or limitations, leaving the agent without direction.
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?
Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it performs classification and recommendation, consistent with read-only. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, permissions) are disclosed, so transparency is adequate but not enhanced.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, for a tool with no output schema and minimal parameter info, slightly more detail could improve usability without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple input (one array parameter) and read-only annotations, the description lacks the output behavior, making the tool's full usage unclear. Without output schema or mention of return value, the agent cannot know how to use the classification result for routing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'paths' with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain what values are expected, their format, or constraints. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, but here a parameter exists and the description fails to compensate, providing no semantics beyond the schema.
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 'classify' and 'recommend' with the resource 'symlinked SSOT paths', giving a specific function. It distinguishes from siblings like 'validate' tools by focusing on classification and routing. However, 'SSOT' and 'safe edit routing' are domain-specific and could be more explicit.
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 sibling tools such as 'route_control_destination' or 'validate_project_adapter'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or alternatives.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds limited behavioral context. It does not disclose edge cases, such as behavior when multiple inputs are provided or omitted, nor does it mention any authentication or rate limits. The description adds minimal value beyond the annotations.
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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the key purpose and output format. It is concise and avoids verbosity, though it could add more detail without becoming excessively long.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and four optional parameters, the description should explain what the generated Markdown report contains or how inputs affect the output. It does not, leaving gaps in how to invoke the tool effectively. The description is incomplete for a tool with this complexity.
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% (no parameter descriptions). The description hints at 'candidate or review object' but does not explain the four parameters (candidate_text, review, evidence, context). It fails to clarify their types, relationships, or how they map to the output, leaving the agent with insufficient semantic information.
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 action ('Render a Markdown smell gate report') and source ('from a candidate or review object'), specifying the output format. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like evaluate_control_candidate or validate_smell_catalog, which might have overlapping purposes.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions for use or exclusion. The usage is implied (when you have a candidate or review object), but no explicit directions are given.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, signaling a non-destructive operation. The description adds the 'route' action which is consistent but does not elaborate on side effects, authorization needs, or output behavior. With annotations present, the description is adequate but not enriched.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys the core function without unnecessary words. It could benefit from slightly more structure but is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With five parameters, zero schema coverage, and no output schema, the description fails to provide sufficient context for correct tool invocation. Critical details like which parameter selects the destination are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no information about any of the five parameters (failure_class, detectability, recurrence, harm, scope). This leaves the agent unable to determine parameter usage or how they map to destinations.
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 tool's action ('route') and resource ('failure class'), listing specific destinations (docs, Skill, quality guard, QA harness, contract prevention). This distinguishes it from siblings like evaluate_control_candidate or check_ssot_links.
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 provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage context from the name and description alone.
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?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to disclose safety. However, it adds minimal behavior context beyond 'inspect' and does not explain what happens if project_root is omitted or the structure of the response.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence, which is concise but lacks sufficient detail to be fully effective. It front-loads the purpose but omits critical information about parameters and usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of 'repository structure' or 'governance controls,' nor does it describe the response format or behavior when the parameter is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the sole parameter 'project_root' at all. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent without guidance on the parameter's purpose or format.
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 'Inspect' and the resources 'repository structure and detected governance controls.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'check_ssot_links' and 'evaluate_control_candidate' by focusing on project-level inspection.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description is minimal and does not provide context for appropriate use or when to choose a sibling tool.
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?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not contradict. However, beyond annotations, it adds little behavioral context; e.g., it doesn't mention if validation produces output or side effects.
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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a validation tool, the description should indicate what the result looks like (e.g., success/failure, errors). Without an output schema, this omission makes the tool harder to use correctly.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description should explain the 'path' parameter. It implies the path points to a smell catalog file but does not clarify format, expected values, or examples.
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 action (validate) and the target (a smell catalog file) and specifies the aspect being validated (required control-promotion fields). It is sufficiently specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like validate_project_adapter.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it 'decides' maturity, implying a non-mutating classification. However, it does not describe the decision process or any side effects. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Single sentence, no redundancy. Could include structure like parameter details, but for a brief description it is concise. However, it is under-specified for a complex tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 parameters (1 required, 2 objects) and no output schema, the description fails to explain return values, the meaning of 'control maturity', or how the parameters are used. The tool requires more context for correct invocation.
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 but does not. It names 'candidate_text' implicitly as the proposed rule, but provides no details on 'evidence' or 'context' parameters, leaving their meaning ambiguous.
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 'evaluate' and the resource 'proposed rule, guard, skill, or remediation', and specifies the outcome 'decide its control maturity'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'check_ssot_links' or 'validate_project_adapter', which have different purposes.
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. Does not mention prerequisites, context needed, or exclusions. The description lacks usage direction.
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:

[![Control-PromotionMCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ValentinoWang/Control-PromotionMCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ValentinoWang/Control-PromotionMCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Control-PromotionMCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ValentinoWang/Control-PromotionMCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ValentinoWang/Control-PromotionMCP)

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/ValentinoWang/Control-PromotionMCP'

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