mcpgrade
Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@mcpgradegrade https://mcp.example.com/mcp and tell me the top fixes"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
mcpgrade
Lighthouse for MCP servers. Your server can be 100% spec-compliant and still fail agents — vague descriptions, token-bloated schemas, confusable tool names. mcpgrade scores what compliance checkers can't: whether an LLM can actually use your tools.

npx mcpgrade https://your-server.example.com/mcp # streamable HTTP
npx mcpgrade --stdio "node ./my-server.js" # local stdio server
npx mcpgrade --snapshot tools.json # saved tools/list output
npx mcpgrade https://mcp-us.example.com/mcp/streamable \
--header "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" # authenticated remote serverZero config. No API key. Report in seconds.
What it checks
Category | Weight | Examples |
Descriptions | 30% | missing/too-short descriptions, undocumented params, placeholder text, duplicate descriptions |
Schema design | 30% | missing types, no |
Naming | 15% | confusable names ( |
Token cost | 15% | catalog total budget, per-tool budget — agents pay your schema on every request |
Consistency | 10% | catalog-wide uniformity; with |
Every finding comes with a concrete fix. Scores are density-normalized: 3 broken tools out of 3 is an F; 3 out of 30 is a dent.
Related MCP server: MCProbe
Example
mcpgrade — agent usability report
target: examples/bad-server.json · 4 tools
F 37/100
Descriptions ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 0
Naming ███████████░░░░░░░░░ 55
Schema design ███░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 13
Token cost ████████████████████ 100
Consistency ████████████████████ 100
findings: 6 errors · 10 warnings · 2 info
Descriptions
✖ D002 [get_user] Description of "get_user" is only 12 chars ("Gets a user.").
↳ Expand to at least one full sentence: what it does, when to use it, what it returns.
...MCP server mode
mcpgrade also runs as an MCP server, so an agent can grade other servers on your behalf:
claude mcp add mcpgrade -- npx -y mcpgrade serveOr add it manually:
{
"mcpServers": {
"mcpgrade": { "command": "npx", "args": ["-y", "mcpgrade", "serve"] }
}
}Three tools, deliberately: grade_mcp_server, explain_rule, list_grading_rules.
Security. In serve mode the target string is chosen by a model, so local launch
commands are restricted to an allowlist (npx, node, python, python3, uv,
uvx, deno, bun, docker). URLs and .json snapshots are always allowed. The
CLI has no such restriction.
Dogfooding. The serve catalog is graded by mcpgrade in CI and must score an A with zero errors (test/serve.test.ts) — if a change drops the grade, the fix is the catalog, not the threshold. Current self-score:
A 96/100 3 tools · 0 errors · 1 warningThe one warning is a rule I disagree with on this catalog: S005 flags target
for describing a fixed value set in prose without an enum. The prose lists
permitted command prefixes for an otherwise free-form string, so an enum is not
expressible. Left in place rather than suppressed — the ruleset is opinionated by
design, and disagreements belong in the open (#10).
Authenticated remote servers
Most hosted MCP servers require a bearer token. Pass headers with --header
(repeatable), or set MCPGRADE_HEADERS="Authorization: Bearer …; X-Tenant: acme":
npx mcpgrade https://your-host/mcp --header "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN"Streamable HTTP is tried first, with an automatic SSE fallback for servers on the
older transport. mcpgrade only calls tools/list — it never invokes a tool unless
you pass --probe.
Header values are treated as secrets: they go to the transport and nowhere
else — not the report, not --json output, not the eval envFingerprint. MCP
serve mode accepts no headers at all, since there the target is chosen by a model
and a model has no business handing out credentials.
CI
mcpgrade <target> --json # machine-readable
mcpgrade <target> --fail-on error # exit 1 on errors — gate your PRs
mcpgrade <target> --disable S008,N001 # tune rules
mcpgrade rules # list all rulesWhy
I integrate first-party and third-party MCP connectors into a production AI agent for a living. Most MCP servers fail agents in the same ten ways — none of which show up in a spec compliance check. So I wrote the linter I wished server authors had run before shipping.
mcpgrade vs mcp-lint
Different tools, different questions. mcp-lint checks whether your tool schemas parse correctly across clients (Claude, Cursor, OpenAI strict mode, ...) — syntax-level compatibility. mcpgrade measures whether a model can actually use your tools — description quality, naming confusion, token economics, and live LLM tool-selection accuracy. A server can pass mcp-lint cleanly and still score an F here, and vice versa. They compose well: lint for compatibility, grade for usability. Full side-by-side with concrete outputs: docs/comparison.md.
Roadmap
v0.1 — static lint engine, 24 rules, A–F scoring
v0.2 —
--eval: LLM-powered live testing — synthetic task generation, blind tool selection, argument validation, refusal accuracy, confusion pairs. Calibrated on real servers (methodology); costs ~$0.05–0.2 per server on Haiku. Bring your ownANTHROPIC_API_KEY, or any OpenAI-compatible endpoint via--eval-base-url(DeepSeek, OpenRouter, ...);--eval-mockruns offline. RespectsHTTPS_PROXY.v0.3 —
mcpgrade serve: runs as an MCP server so an agent can grade other servers (allowlisted launchers; the catalog is graded by mcpgrade in CI and must hold an A). PlusenvFingerprinton every eval result — catalog hash, model, temperature, prompt version, task policy — so two scores are comparably or visibly incomparable.Also shipped: GitHub Action for CI gating, and a public leaderboard of 36 popular servers.
Four-outcome eval scoring (#1):
--evalresults are now bucketed into five outcomes — correct call, correct refusal, correct clarification, a harmless miss, and unsafe plausible action (weighted −2, so asking beats guessing) — with a single weighted score. Details.v0.4 — the rest of the failure taxonomy work, driven by reader feedback:
four-outcome scoringshipped above; held-out task authoring, silent-vs-observable failures, cross-server collisions, multi-hop evaluation, rule-entailment dedup. Dynamic badges when the scoring model settles.
License
MIT
This server cannot be deployed
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
Grade MCP tool definitions for agent-readiness: score, A-F grade, fixes, est. token cost.
MCP server providing access to the Scorecard API to evaluate and optimize LLM systems.
MCP server for your apps' tools and custom tools, plus hosted AI agents and approval-gated workflows
Pay-per-call AI evaluation MCP server. Score LLM outputs against benchmark rubrics via Workers AI.
Related MCP Servers
AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceMCP server that gives AI coding agents direct access to evaluation tools.2322 PyPIApache 2.0- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceA stdio MCP server that audits other MCP servers over the live protocol. It connects to any MCP target (stdio or HTTP), lints every tool's schema for agent-usability, then actually calls the tools with deliberately broken inputs to see how the server handles them, and returns a 0–100 conformance score with a per-dimension breakdown rendered as Markdown.620 npm6MIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP-style stdio server for evaluating AI agent outputs, enabling CI-friendly quality gates, regression comparisons, and canary promotion decisions.3MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceMCP server that scores tool descriptions, estimates token costs, simulates agent tool selection, and generates reliability reports to help AI agents choose the right tools and reduce wasted tokens.54 npmMIT