No user-submitted related servers found.
Scored across 9 tools
Most tools have sharply distinct purposes, and the descriptions explicitly cross-reference when to use each vs alternatives (e.g. vet_mcp_server vs static_scan_tools vs list_scan_rules). The exception is the approval trio (status_mcp_server / approve_mcp_server / revoke_mcp_server), whose descriptions are near-identical copy-paste text that even mislabels itself as 'status a local server approval', leaving boundary clarity to the names alone.
All nine tools use consistent snake_case verb_noun/verb_object patterns (check_egress_url, static_scan_tools, list_scan_rules, approve_mcp_server). No mixed conventions or arbitrary casing.
Nine tools is well within the ideal range and each maps to a distinct stage of an MCP vetting workflow (scan, classify, vet, canonicalize, egress, rules, approval lifecycle). Nothing feels padded or missing at the count level.
The surface covers the core vetting lifecycle: granular vs full scanning, sensitive-tool classification, rule introspection, JSON canonicalization for signatures, egress allowlisting, and approval status/approve/revoke. Minor gaps remain (no direct tool to list existing pins or manage the threat feed), but agents can work around them.