mcp-server-action1

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action, with no overlapping purposes. The addition of action1_search_capabilities helps agents disambiguate further.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'action1_verb_noun' pattern using snake_case, with verbs limited to 'list', 'get', 'search', and 'set'.
Tool Count5/5
15 tools cover the core capabilities of the Action1 platform (endpoints, updates, vulnerabilities, reports, etc.) without unnecessary bloat or deficiency.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface is comprehensive for viewing and reading data, and includes a critical write operation (set_update_approvals). However, it lacks tools for deploying software or running scripts, though this is by design.
Average 3.8/5 across 15 of 15 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 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 Apache 2.0.
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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint fully. The description adds only 'read-only', which is consistent. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed beyond annotations.
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?
Extremely concise - a single phrase. It front-loads the key concept 'deployable packages'. However, it is incomplete as a sentence; a more structured form would improve readability.
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?
With 6 parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description omits details about return format, pagination (though 'from' hints at it), and what fields are available. It is minimally adequate given the schema and annotations.
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 high (83%), so the schema itself documents most parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning to parameters beyond naming the repository.
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 identifies the resource as 'deployable packages in the software repository' and hints at read-only nature. It distinguishes from sibling list tools by naming the specific repository. However, it is a fragment rather than a full sentence, lacking a verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'.
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 like action1_list_scripts or action1_list_updates. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds no behavioral context beyond stating it fetches data. It does not mention pagination, sorting, or filtering behavior even though parameters exist for these.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words. However, it is very brief and could benefit from a bit more detail without sacrificing conciseness.
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?
No output schema exists. The description does not explain return format, pagination (from/limit), filtering (filter), sorting (sortby), or any behavior details. For a data fetching tool with 6 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.
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 83% (5 of 6 params have descriptions). The tool description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline is 3, and no additional value is added.
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 fetches data rows of a report for an organization, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like action1_list_reports (which lists reports, not data rows) and action1_get_endpoint.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like action1_list_reports (to first get report IDs) or when to avoid it. Usage is implied from the function name and sibling 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's addition of output fields (approval status, severity, endpoints) adds some context. No behavioral traits beyond annotations are disclosed, but no contradictions exist.
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 at two sentences, front-loading purpose and then listing filters. No wasted words, but could be structured more clearly with bullet points for filters.
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?
Given 12 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description provides essential information but lacks details on return format, pagination behavior, or how affected endpoints are represented. The readOnlyHint reduces some burden, but completeness is still limited.
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?
With only 42% schema description coverage, the description adds value by listing key filter parameters (approvalStatus, securitySeverity, onlyLatest) and noting possible values for approvalStatus. However, many parameters like from, limit, filter, sortby remain unexplained, leaving gaps.
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 tool lists available updates with approval status, severity, and affected endpoints. It distinguishes from write tools like action1_set_update_approvals, but does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools such as action1_list_endpoints.
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?
The description mentions filters and the ability to fetch a single update via packageId, implying usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like action1_list_vulnerabilities or action1_get_installed_software.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows the tool is safe. The description adds context about scope (enterprise vs. org), but does not disclose pagination behavior or full operational constraints. It provides some additional value beyond annotations.
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?
Extremely concise with no wasted words, but the structure is a sentence fragment rather than a complete sentence. It is front-loaded and communicates the core purpose efficiently.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, readable parameter descriptions in the schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is adequate but not exhaustive. It misses mentioning pagination or return format, though the schema covers some of that. The overall context is sufficient for a read-only audit log tool.
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 80%, so most parameters are documented. The description adds meaning by clarifying that orgId scopes logging to an organization, which is not fully evident from the schema alone. This improves parameter understanding beyond the baseline.
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 the tool retrieves enterprise-wide or org-scoped audit logs. The verb 'get' and resource 'audit log' are explicit, and the scope distinction provides differentiation from sibling tools which deal with endpoints, software, reports, etc.
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 versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description mentions org-scoped logging with orgId but does not provide explicit usage context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from parameter descriptions.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only the scope ('built-in and custom') but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination or filtering, which are already in the schema.
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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.
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 absence of an output schema, the description implicitly covers the tool's role as a listing operation. While it could mention that results are paginated or filtered, the parameter descriptions already handle that, and the sibling tool list provides sufficient context.
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%, with all parameters having descriptions. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, so a 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 a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'available built-in and custom reports'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like action1_get_report_data, which retrieves data from a specific report rather than listing them.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest other tools for similar tasks, leaving the agent without context for selection.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds context about the includeMissingUpdates parameter affecting output, but does not disclose other behaviors such as error handling, authentication, or rate limits. With strong annotations, this is adequate but not enriched.
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 a single sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key parameter effect without any redundancy. It is efficiently front-loaded.
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?
No output schema exists, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., endpoint details). Annotations are strong, but for a fetch tool, the return format or fields would be helpful. It is minimally complete for a simple tool but could be improved.
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 low (33%); only orgId has a description. The description clarifies includeMissingUpdates but not endpointId. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but leaves one parameter undocumented.
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 action ('Fetch one managed endpoint') and specifies a key parameter behavior ('includeMissingUpdates=true also returns its missing updates'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like action1_list_endpoints which list multiple endpoints.
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?
The description implies usage for fetching a single endpoint but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like action1_list_endpoints or action1_list_updates. No exclusionary guidance or context is provided.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that the server 'cannot run or edit scripts by design,' providing extra context beyond annotations. It does not detail pagination, sorting, or filtering behavior, which is only partially covered by schema descriptions.
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, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.
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 list tool with good annotations and schema, the description is largely complete. It states the core purpose and a key constraint. It does not explicitly mention pagination or return structure, but schema covers parameter semantics adequately.
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 high (80%), with 4 of 5 parameters described. The description adds no additional parameter information, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 it lists the script library and is read-only, distinguishing it from sibling tools that list other resources (endpoints, reports, etc.). However, it does not explicitly name siblings to differentiate.
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 explicitly notes it is read-only and cannot run or edit scripts, providing clear context. It does not, however, name alternative tools for running or editing scripts.
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?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds specific output fields (name, OS, etc.) and notes that 'fields="*" adds extended data', providing context beyond annotations. It does not negate any annotation.
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 main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.
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?
Given 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core output fields and filter behavior but omits pagination, sorting, and continuation details (though these are in the schema). It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.
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 50%, and the description adds meaning for filter parameters (stating they accept console values) and the fields parameter (extended data). However, it does not clarify other parameters like pagination or sorting beyond the schema. The added value is marginal.
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 it provides an 'inventory of managed endpoints' listing specific fields like name, OS, agent status, etc. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as 'action1_get_endpoint' (single endpoint) and 'action1_list_organizations' (organizations).
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?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies usage for listing endpoints but provides no exclusions or comparisons to siblings. The hint about filter values referring to the console is helpful but not sufficient for a higher score.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the tool is safe. The description adds minimal behavioral context (e.g., fetching one vs. listing). It doesn't disclose pagination, return format, or other traits. No contradictions with annotations.
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 consists of two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently conveys key parameter semantics. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
With 10 parameters, no output schema, and limited description, the tool definition is adequate but not fully complete. The description covers core functionality and two parameters, but many aspects (pagination, filtering, sort) rely solely on schema comments. Annotations provide safety context, but overall completeness is moderate.
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 50%, and the description adds meaning for two parameters (cveId, detail). This improves understanding but leaves 8 parameters largely unexplained. Given the baseline of 3 for moderate coverage, the description's added value is adequate but not exceptional.
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 'CVEs across endpoints with score and remediation status,' specifying the verb (list/resource) and key attributes. It also explains parameter usage for fetching one CVE with cveId and listing endpoints or remediations with detail. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_endpoints or list_organizations.
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 context by explaining when to use cveId (fetch one) and detail (endpoints/remediations). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Given no sibling tool lists CVEs, the usage is implicitly clear, but explicit exclusions would improve it.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat these. The description adds context on scope but lacks details on pagination or filtering behavior beyond what the schema provides.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core functionality.
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 rich annotations and high schema coverage, the description is mostly complete for a read-only list tool. However, it lacks mention of pagination or default limit behavior, which could be inferred from schema but is not explicitly stated.
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?
The description adds meaning to the endpointId parameter by clarifying its purpose ('or one endpoint with endpointId'), which is not documented in the schema. Other parameters are well-documented in schema (83% coverage), so the description provides marginal extra value.
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 retrieves installed software inventory, with scope either organization-wide or for a single endpoint via endpointId. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like action1_list_software_repository.
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?
The description implies when to use (for software inventory, with optional endpointId for single endpoint) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or how it compares to alternatives like action1_list_software_repository.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read behavior. The description adds the ability to get member endpoints with contents=true, but does not mention pagination or other behavioral traits beyond the schema. It provides marginal added value.
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 a single sentence of 13 words, front-loading the main purpose and key options. No redundant information; every phrase earns its place.
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 list tool with good annotations and schema descriptions for most parameters, the description is fairly complete. It covers the primary functionality and key parameters. However, it could mention return format or clarify pagination behavior, but the absence is not critical given the context.
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 71% (5 of 7 params have descriptions). The description adds meaning to the two undocumented params (groupId and contents) by explaining their roles. This compensates for the coverage gap and provides additional context beyond what the schema alone offers.
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 it lists endpoint groups, with options to fetch a specific group (by groupId) or its member endpoints (contents=true). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like action1_list_endpoints (which lists individual endpoints) and action1_get_endpoint (single endpoint).
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?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like action1_list_endpoints. It implies usage for groups but lacks explicit guidance or exclusions. The sibling tool names provide some context, but the description itself is insufficient.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description reinforces read-only behavior and adds that creation is deliberately not exposed, but does not provide additional behavioral traits like rate limits, caching, or side effects beyond what annotations convey.
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, zero wasted words. The most important information (two modes, read-only, endpointResults) is front-loaded. Every sentence adds essential value without redundancy.
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 8 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description reasonably explains the two modes and a key flag. It does not describe the return format or pagination beyond 'from', but the complexity is moderate and the description covers the primary behavioral aspects.
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?
The description adds meaningful context for 'kind' (explaining schedules vs instances) and 'endpointResults' (per-endpoint outcomes for one instance). For 'from', it repeats the schema's pagination note. Schema coverage is 63%, and the description partially compensates by clarifying key parameters, though some remain schema-only documented.
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 lists scheduled automations (kind=schedules) or run history (kind=instances), and explains the endpointResults option. It distinguishes between two sub-functions with specific verbs and resources, and explicitly states it is read-only, contrasting with creation/running.
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 explicitly tells when to use each kind (schedules vs instances) and states that creating/running is not exposed, which guides against misuse. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools for creation, but the read-only guidance and sibling-tool context imply the agent should look elsewhere for mutations.
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?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint are true, and destructiveHint is false. The description adds that the tool returns 'capabilities and examples', which is useful context about the output, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication needs.
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 only, front-loaded with purpose and usage. Every word is functional and contributes to understanding, with no redundancy.
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 (two optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers its purpose and when to use it. It is complete for a discovery tool, though it could optionally describe the structure of returned results.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. However, the description does not elaborate on the 'query' or 'limit' parameters beyond their names. While the parameter names are self-explanatory (query for search term, limit for max results), the lack of any parameter guidance in the description means it adds minimal value over 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?
Description clearly states 'Search the Action1 MCP server capabilities and examples', specifying verb (search) and resource (capabilities and examples). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like action1_list_endpoints by suggesting it should be used first to decide which tool to call.
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?
Explicitly advises 'Use this first when deciding which tool to call.', providing clear context for when to invoke it. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the sibling tools are all data retrieval tools, making the usage guidance clear.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context: this tool lists only organizations that the credential can access, and it's the starting point. No contradictions.
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, both essential. First sentence states purpose, second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded.
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 list tool with optional params and rich annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains the entry point role. It does not describe the output format, but given no output schema, that's minimal. Slightly more detail on return structure could be helpful but not critical.
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%: all 4 parameters have descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, 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 'List the Action1 organizations this credential can access.' It specifies the action (list) and the resource (organizations), and distinguishes this tool from siblings by noting that other tools need an orgId, making it the entry point.
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?
The description explicitly instructs 'Start here — other tools need an orgId.' This tells the agent to use this tool first before others, providing clear when-to-use guidance and context for alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it is a mutation (non-readonly), requires write access, refuses orgId='all', and warns that approved updates affect scheduled automations. This fully informs the agent of side effects.
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 earning its place: purpose, user guidance, and constraints. Front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words.
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 simple tool with 2 required params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, behavioral traits, and restrictions comprehensively. No gaps remain.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra detail about parameters beyond what the schema provides; it only mentions the 'orgId="all"' restriction. No deeper semantics added.
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 'Approve/decline' and the resource 'updates for ONE organization'. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the single-org scope and explicitly refusing orgId='all', which is accepted by many sibling tools.
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 guidance: 'confirm the list with the user before approving' and 'Requires write access on this instance; orgId="all" is refused'. It gives context on when not to use (orgId='all') and a caution, but no explicit alternative tools since no direct sibling exists.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server-action1 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/borgels/mcp-server-action1/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/borgels/mcp-server-action1)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server-action1 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/borgels/mcp-server-action1/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/borgels/mcp-server-action1)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/borgels/mcp-server-action1'

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