satring-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: compare_services (side-by-side comparison), discover_services (keyword search), find_best_service (ranked search), get_ratings (reviews), get_service (single service details), list_categories (category listing), and list_services (filtered listing). There is no overlap or ambiguity in their functions.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_services, discover_services, get_ratings) with clear, descriptive verbs and nouns. The naming is uniform and predictable throughout the set.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the count is well-scoped for a service discovery and comparison platform. Each tool serves a specific, necessary function without redundancy, making the set efficient and focused.
Completeness5/5
The toolset provides comprehensive coverage for exploring and evaluating L402/x402 paid API services: discovery (discover_services, find_best_service), listing (list_categories, list_services), detailed viewing (get_service, get_ratings), and comparison (compare_services). No obvious gaps exist for the domain.
Average 3/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 13 of 13 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 7 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.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching but doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., list of services, metadata), whether it's paginated (implied by parameters but not stated), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a search operation.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose.
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?
For a search tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are structured, or provide context about the satring.com platform. The agent would lack critical information to use this tool effectively.
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 60%, with two parameters having no descriptions in the schema (page and page_size). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. However, the schema provides reasonable documentation for most parameters, meeting the baseline.
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 ('Search') and target resource ('satring.com for L402/x402 paid API services'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this search tool from sibling tools like 'find_best_service' or 'list_services', which likely have overlapping functionality.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_best_service' or 'list_services'. The description only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate or what distinguishes it from similar tools in the context.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'Get' but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. This leaves critical behavioral traits undefined for safe and effective use.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly, which is ideal for conciseness in tool descriptions.
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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or how parameters interact (e.g., pagination with limit/offset). For a tool fetching data with multiple inputs, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its full context and usage.
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 33% (only 'slug' has a description), so the description must compensate but doesn't add any parameter details. It mentions 'ratings and reviews for a service', which loosely relates to 'slug', but provides no extra meaning for 'limit' or 'offset'. Baseline is 3 due to the partial schema coverage, but the description adds minimal value.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'ratings and reviews for a service', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_service' or 'compare_services' that might also involve service information, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.
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. With siblings like 'get_service' and 'compare_services', there's no indication of whether this tool is for detailed reviews, aggregated ratings, or how it complements other tools, leaving the agent to guess based on context.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'full details' entails. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic retrieval.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly for an agent.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'full details' includes, potential response formats, or error cases. For a retrieval tool with no structured output information, this leaves the agent under-informed about what to expect from the operation.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the 'slug' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by reiterating 'by its slug', but doesn't provide additional context like slug format examples or how it relates to service identification. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('full details for a single service'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_services' or 'discover_services', which might also retrieve service information but with different scopes or methods.
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 minimal guidance by specifying 'by its slug', but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_services' or 'find_best_service'. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts to help an agent choose appropriately among siblings.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering and sorting but lacks critical details such as pagination behavior (implied by page/page_size parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like (no output schema).
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating filtering and sorting details.
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?
For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior beyond basic listing, missing details on pagination, error handling, or how filters interact, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty.
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%), but the description adds some value by explaining the sorting options ('cheapest, top-rated, or most-reviewed'). However, it doesn't clarify the meaning of other parameters like 'status' or 'protocol', leaving gaps in understanding.
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 verb ('List') and resource ('all services on satring.com'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'discover_services' or 'find_best_service', which likely have overlapping functionality.
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 mentions optional filters and sorting but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compare_services' or 'discover_services'. There's no indication of prerequisites, typical use cases, 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only comparison operation but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the comparison output. For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Compare two services') and specifies the comparison attributes. There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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 moderate complexity (two parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and output information. This results in a minimal viable description that may require additional context for effective use.
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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'slug_a' and 'slug_b' as service slugs. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying these parameters are used for comparison, but it doesn't provide additional context such as slug format, examples, or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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's purpose: 'Compare two services side by side (pricing, ratings, protocol, status).' It specifies the verb 'compare' and the resource 'services,' with explicit attributes for comparison. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_service' or 'find_best_service,' which might also involve service evaluation, leaving room for ambiguity.
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 description mentions comparing two services but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts where this is preferred over siblings like 'discover_services' or 'find_best_service.' This lack of direction could lead to misuse or confusion in tool selection.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions ranking strategies and a data requirement for 'fastest', but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or what 'top results' means quantitatively. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
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, efficient sentence that packs essential information: the action, resource, ranking strategies, and a specific data requirement. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it appropriately concise and 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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with ranking strategies), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the core purpose and strategies but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and differentiation from siblings. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps that could hinder effective tool selection and invocation.
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 schema already fully documents both parameters (q and strategy). The description adds marginal value by explaining the ranking strategies in more detail (e.g., 'cheapest', 'top-rated', 'fastest (requires health data)', 'best (composite score)'), but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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's purpose: 'Search for services by keyword and return the top results ranked by strategy.' It specifies the action (search), resource (services), and ranking strategies. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_services' or 'discover_services' which might have overlapping functionality.
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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions that the 'fastest' strategy requires health data, which is helpful context, but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compare_services', 'discover_services', or 'list_services'. No explicit when/when-not guidance or prerequisites are provided.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention any traits like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or what the output looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, and every word 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on output format or behavioral context, which could be helpful for an agent. For a basic list tool, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it doesn't need to compensate for any schema 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 action ('List') and resource ('all service categories on satring.com'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_services' or 'discover_services', which prevents a perfect score, but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.
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 like 'list_services' or 'discover_services'. It implies usage for retrieving categories but offers no context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
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:

[![satring MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/clankwright/satring/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/clankwright/satring)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![satring MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/clankwright/satring/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/clankwright/satring)

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/clankwright/satring'

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