Skip to main content
Glama
bharat3645

Voraxx MCP Server

by bharat3645
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct operation: CVE lookup for vulnerability details, nuclei for active scanning, and Shodan for passive reconnaissance. No overlap in purpose.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow the pattern '{source}_{action}' with consistent lowercase and underscores. Verbs 'lookup' and 'scan' are appropriate and distinguishable.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools is a focused, well-scoped set for a security reconnaissance server. Each tool provides essential functionality without bloat.

    Completeness4/5

    The set covers vulnerability lookup, active scanning, and passive recon, covering key security workflows. A minor gap might be a tool for detailed port scanning, but the current set is sufficient for most common tasks.

  • Average 4.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 3 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 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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses that it uses local binary and templates and should only target authorized systems. Missing details on output format, error handling, and performance implications.

    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 concise sentences: purpose, constraint, ethical note. Front-loaded with key action and no extraneous text.

    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?

    Lacks description of return values (no output schema) and side effects. For a subprocess-based tool, the agent would benefit from knowing output format and potential failure modes.

    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?

    Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

    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 runs a scan with nuclei, specifying the target and the tool. It distinguishes from sibling lookup tools (cve_lookup, shodan_host_lookup) by indicating this performs scanning, not lookups.

    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?

    Provides clear context: requires local nuclei installation, uses existing templates, and ethical authorization. Does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., missing nuclei), but the condition is implied by 'if installed'.

    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?

    No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; it discloses read-only nature, no API key needed, and outlines return content (summary, CVSS, affected packages, references).

    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?

    Description is concise and front-loaded with key information, though the behavioral notes could be separated for even clearer structure.

    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?

    For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, return content, and behavioral traits, making it complete for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

    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 coverage is 100%, and parameter description is clear; the description reiterates the same example but adds context about the database, providing marginal value beyond schema.

    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?

    Description clearly states it looks up a CVE by ID against the OSV.dev database, distinguishing it from sibling tools nuclei_scan and shodan_host_lookup which serve different purposes.

    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?

    Description implies usage context (read-only, no API key required) but does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with potential alternatives.

    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?

    With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only nature, dependency on environment variable, and that data is from Shodan's last scan. However, it omits details like error handling or rate limits, which would further enhance transparency.

    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?

    Two sentences convey purpose, behavior, and API modes with no redundancy. The most critical information is front-loaded, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

    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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, data types, and behavior modes. It lacks details on return format or empty-case handling, but given the low complexity, it is sufficiently complete.

    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?

    Schema coverage is 100% for the ip parameter, which already describes IPv4/IPv6. The description adds an example ('1.1.1.1') and clarifies format, providing marginal extra value beyond the schema.

    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 ('look up'), resource ('IP address'), and the specific data types ('open ports, hostnames, CPEs, known CVEs'). It distinguishes from sibling tools (cve_lookup, nuclei_scan) by specifying the Shodan source and that it's not a live probe.

    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 provides clear context: default behavior (InternetDB, no API key) vs. full API when SHODAN_API_KEY is set, and that it's read-only reflecting last scan. It indirectly guides usage for recon vs. live scanning, though lacks explicit comparisons to siblings.

    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

voraxx-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

voraxx-mcp-server 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/bharat3645/voraxx-mcp-server'

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