Skip to main content
Glama
athoune

prospector-mcp

by athoune
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.3.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one runs the analysis, the other checks installation. No overlap.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent 'prospector_' prefix with a verb (run, check_ready). Clear and predictable pattern.

    Tool Count3/5

    Only 2 tools for a static analysis server feels minimal but not unreasonable if the scope is limited to running checks.

    Completeness2/5

    Missing common operations like listing rules, retrieving results, or configuring the analysis. Gaps are significant for a typical analysis workflow.

  • Average 3.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored. Lowest: 2.8/5.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 13 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under GPL 3.0.

  • 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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool modifies files, error handling, or output format. Only states it runs analysis.

    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 very concise (one sentence), but it lacks substance needed for a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations. It is front-loaded but under-specified.

    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 no annotations, 3 parameters, and the existence of an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret results. The description is insufficiently complete for a static analysis tool.

    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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'target', 'profile', 'strictness'). No additional parameter guidance.

    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 (Run) and resource (Prospector static analysis on a file or directory), and the sibling 'prospector_check_ready' implies a different function. However, it lacks detail on the scope or output.

    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 vs the sibling 'prospector_check_ready' or other alternatives. The description does not provide any usage context or prerequisites.

    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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool checks installation and reports version, but does not disclose behavior if Prospector is not installed (e.g., error vs. false response). No mention of side effects or read-only nature.

    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?

    Single sentence, no extraneous words. Perfectly concise for a simple tool.

    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?

    Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists (so return values are documented there), and complexity is low, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose. Could mention error behavior, but not strictly necessary.

    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?

    No parameters exist (schema coverage 100% trivially). Baseline 4 for 0 params; description adds no param info but is not needed.

    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?

    Clearly states the verb 'check whether ... installed' and the resource 'Prospector', plus 'report its version'. Distinguishes from sibling 'prospector_run' which would likely run the tool, not check readiness.

    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?

    Implicitly suggests using before running prospector_run, but does not explicitly state when to use or when not, nor any alternatives. For a simple 0-param tool, this is acceptable but not explicit.

    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

prospector-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

prospector-mcp 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/athoune/prospector-mcp'

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