Skip to main content
Glama
bind-protocol

@bind-protocol/mcp-server

Official
by bind-protocol
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

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 serves a distinct purpose: bind_verify_credential performs full signature verification, bind_hash_credential computes a hash for revocation lookup, and bind_parse_credential decodes without verification. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these actions.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent 'bind_verb_noun' pattern: bind_verify_credential, bind_hash_credential, bind_parse_credential. The prefix and verb ordering are uniform, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.

    Tool Count5/5

    The server has only 3 tools, each focused on a specific credential operation (verify, hash, parse). This is a well-scoped set for a credential utility, falling within the typical 3-15 tool range and avoiding redundancy.

    Completeness3/5

    The tools cover parsing, hashing, and verification, but verification explicitly does not check revocation and relies on a separate 'bind_check_revocation' tool that is not included. This creates a notable gap in the credential validation workflow, as the hash tool is only useful if the revocation check is available elsewhere.

  • Average 4.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • 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.

  • 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?

    No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals the algorithm (SHA-256) and downstream purpose, but does not specify the output format (e.g., hex, base64) or any edge-case behavior, which is a notable gap for a computation tool.

    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 concise sentences with no redundancy. The key action and purpose are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's function.

    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?

    The description explains what the tool does, why it is used, and how the result is consumed downstream. Since there is no output schema, it could be more explicit about the returned hash format, but it is largely complete for a simple utility.

    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?

    The schema already provides a clear description for the single parameter (jwt: 'The VC-JWT string to hash'), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter detail beyond what the schema conveys.

    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 computes a SHA-256 hash of a VC-JWT, a specific operation distinct from siblings (verify, parse). It also names the downstream use (bind_check_revocation), making its purpose unambiguous.

    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 the usage context: generating a hash for revocation checking. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state exclusions, but the intended workflow is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

    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 the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the crucial nuance that signature verification is not performed, and it describes the output components. It does not mention error handling or side effects, but for a parse/inspect tool this covers the main behavioral trait.

    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?

    The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no fluff. Every word earns its place, clearly stating what the tool does and when to use it.

    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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the essential context: what it decodes, the fact it does not verify, and its intended purpose. It could specify the exact return structure, but naming 'header, payload, and signature' gives sufficient shape for an agent.

    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?

    The input schema already provides 100% coverage with a single parameter `jwt` described as 'The VC-JWT string to parse'. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

    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 uses the specific verb 'Decode' with the resource 'Bind Protocol VC-JWT' and explicitly states the output components (header, payload, signature). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it does 'without verifying the signature' and frames it for inspection before verification.

    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?

    It provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('Use this to inspect a credential before verification') and implies a limitation ('without verifying'). However, it does not name alternative tools directly; the sibling context helps but the description itself stops short of explicitly saying 'use bind_verify_credential for verification.'

    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 the full burden and discloses key behaviors: parsing JWT, fetching JWKS, verifying ES256 signature, and checking expiration. It also states what it does not do (revocation check). It lacks error handling details, but the core behavioral profile is transparent.

    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, front-loaded with the primary purpose and a clear process list. No waste; every word contributes to understanding.

    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?

    The description covers the main workflow, return value ('Returns the verified claims on success'), and explicitly scopes out revocation. For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, this is adequately complete, though error behavior is not mentioned.

    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?

    The schema fully describes the 'jwt' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

    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 'Verify a Bind Protocol VC-JWT' and lists the verification steps. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on verification (vs parsing/hashing) and explicitly notes it does not check revocation.

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

    Usage Guidelines5/5

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

    Explicitly says 'Does NOT check revocation status — use bind_check_revocation separately for that', naming an alternative and clarifying when not to use this tool. The verification context makes the intended use clear.

    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-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

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/bind-protocol/mcp-server'

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