Skip to main content
Glama
aos-standard

mcp-blast-radius

by aos-standard
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

75%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clear distinct purposes: one checks connectivity (self-test) and the other validates agent directories. No overlap in functionality.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools use the consistent prefix 'aos_compliance_' followed by a verb in snake_case, creating a predictable naming pattern.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the surface feels thin for a compliance validation server. However, it may be acceptable if the domain is narrow.

    Completeness2/5

    The server lacks common operations such as listing directories, retrieving past validations, or managing configurations, making it incomplete for typical compliance workflows.

  • Average 3.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 8 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.

  • This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.

  • 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?

    The description implies a read-only operation (self-check) but does not disclose behavioral traits beyond that. With no annotations, it should provide details on side effects, permissions, or error conditions. The description lacks such transparency.

    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 concise (one sentence) and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it under-specified. It earns points for no fluff but loses for incomplete coverage.

    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's simplicity (one optional boolean parameter, likely no side effects) and the presence of an output schema, the description still lacks essential context about what the self-test actually checks, what failure modes exist, and how the single parameter affects behavior.

    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 does not mention the only parameter 'mock' or its meaning. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description carries full responsibility but adds no value over the schema. This is a critical gap.

    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 'Self-connectivity check for MCP wiring' clearly states the tool's purpose (checking connectivity) and resource (MCP wiring). It is specific but could be improved by distinguishing from the sibling 'aos_compliance_validate'.

    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 sibling tool exists but the description does not mention when to choose one over the other. Additionally, there is no context on prerequisites or context.

    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, the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses that advisory mode does not block while blocking mode does, and returns pass/fail with blocking_reasons. Missing details on authorization needs, side effects (likely read-only), or rate limits, but adequate for basic understanding.

    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?

    Three sentences, each serving a purpose: first states overall function, second and third detail gate modes. No fluff, front-loaded with key info.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    The description covers the core validation behavior and gate modes. An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, with 4 parameters and 0% schema coverage, missing parameter explanations make the description incomplete. Additional details on target_dir and tool_id would improve completeness.

    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 coverage is 0%, so description should explain parameters. It only describes gate_mode; it does not explain tool_id, target_dir, or mock. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

    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 'validate', the resource 'one agent directory', and the output 'pass/fail with blocking_reasons'. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'aos_compliance_self_test' which tests the compliance system itself, not a directory.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines4/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description explains both gate modes: advisory (default) returns info without blocking, and blocking sets blocks_next_step=true for CI enforcement. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus the sibling self_test.

    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

mcp-blast-radius MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-blast-radius 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/aos-standard/mcp-blast-radius'

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