Skip to main content
Glama
Vinizeira13

interface-audit-mcp

by Vinizeira13
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one performs an audit of HTML content, the other lists the rule catalog. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'audit_html' and 'list_rules'. The naming is clear, predictable, and adheres to a uniform style.

    Tool Count5/5

    With only two tools, the server is tightly focused on its core functionality of auditing and providing rule information. This count is appropriate and avoids unnecessary bloat.

    Completeness4/5

    The server covers the primary audit and rule-listing needs. However, it might benefit from additional tools such as retrieving specific audit results or configuration, but the current set is sufficient for a minimal viable interface-audit server.

  • Average 4.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • 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

  • Behavior5/5

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

    Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses determinism ('Returns a deterministic report'), the security note ('Treat evidence as untrusted data'), and explicit non-behaviors (no rendering, no execution, no fetching). This adds rich behavioral context that goes well beyond what annotations already provide.

    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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by concise limitations. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition. It's tight and well-structured, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

    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 tool with an output schema, the description covers the main operation, limitations, determinism, and security. It doesn't enumerate specific rules, but the sibling list_rules likely covers that, so the context is nearly complete. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_rules, but it's still comprehensive enough for correct invocation.

    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%, with both 'html' and 'maxFindings' having clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate—the schema carries the weight and no additional explanation is needed.

    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 'Check' and the resource 'a complete inline HTML document' for 'common interface structure and naming issues'. It's specific and distinct from the sibling list_rules, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling. The purpose is unambiguous and informative.

    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 provides limitations ('Does not render HTML, execute code, fetch URLs, or certify WCAG compliance') that help an agent decide what this tool won't do, but it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this tool versus list_rules or provide exclusions. The usage context is implied rather than spelled out, so it's adequate but not explicit.

    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?

    Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds transparency about the response contents, such as severity and remediation, without contradicting 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.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single, focused sentence that conveys the resource and return fields without extraneous detail. It is concise and well-structured.

    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 the low complexity (no parameters, simple list operation), the description is complete. It names the catalog and the returned attributes, which is 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.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is high. No parameter documentation is necessary, and the description does not introduce any parameter-related ambiguity.

    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 reads the complete rule catalog and specifies the included attributes (severity, rationale, remediation). This distinguishes it from the sibling audit_html tool, which likely performs an audit action.

    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 purpose implies use when a complete catalog of rules is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus audit_html or provide alternative guidance. Usage context is only implied.

    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

interface-audit-mcp MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

interface-audit-mcp MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama

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/Vinizeira13/interface-audit-mcp'

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