MCP Factory

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
The space photo tools are clearly distinct (random, specific date, today). The scanning tools are also distinct, though the comprehensive scan_codebase overlaps with the individual scanners; descriptions help clarify when to use each. The two domains are unrelated but clearly named, reducing confusion.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_*_space_photo for photos, scan_* for code scans). No mixing of conventions, making them predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools across two domains, the count is well-scoped. The space photos domain has 3 tools (covers essential queries) and the scanning domain has 5 tools (comprehensive coverage without excess).
Completeness4/5
The space photo tools cover random, specific date, and today—sufficient for basic retrieval. The scanning tools cover quality, dependencies, secrets, security patterns, and a full scan, leaving few gaps. Missing features like search or description retrieval for photos are minor.
Average 3.9/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit 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
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only vs. mutation, permission requirements, or side effects. It only lists what patterns are detected, leaving safety and operational context unclear.
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 relatively concise, using a brief sentence and a bullet-like list to enumerate detected patterns. It front-loads purpose and avoids unnecessary repetition.
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 existence of an output schema (not shown), return values are partially covered. However, the description omits prerequisites, limitations (e.g., false positive rates), and whether the scan is static or dynamic, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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 0% schema description coverage for the single 'path' parameter, the description adds minimal value by mentioning 'codebase,' implying the path is a codebase location. It does not specify accepted formats or constraints, so it partially compensates but remains basic.
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 scans a codebase for OWASP security antipatterns and lists specific vulnerability types. It distinguishes from siblings like scan_codebase, scan_code_quality, and scan_secrets by focusing explicitly on security vulnerabilities.
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 says 'Use this when asked about security vulnerabilities or OWASP compliance,' providing explicit usage context. It does not mention when not to use, but the sibling list implies boundaries.
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, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool fetches a random photo from NASA's archives, omitting details on rate limits, error handling, or side effects. This is minimal disclosure.
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 extraneous words. Every word 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?
Given no parameters and an existing output schema (presumably documenting return values), the description is largely complete. It identifies the source and randomness, though it lacks details on caching or the selection algorithm. Still sufficient for a simple 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. Baseline 4 applies as the description suffices for a parameterless tool.
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 returns a random Astronomy Picture of the Day from NASA's archives, using a specific verb and resource. It naturally distinguishes from siblings like get_space_photo_by_date and get_todays_space_photo.
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?
While the description implies use for random selection, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over siblings, nor any conditions or exclusions. Usage context is implied but not clarified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It states the tool 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention side effects, authentication, rate limits, or error conditions. Given the existence of an output schema, return structure is not needed in description, but other behavioral details are missing.
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?
A single, well-formed sentence with no extraneous words. The description is concise and front-loaded with the key information.
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 retrieval tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a critical formatting detail. Missing elements like error handling or availability restrictions are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.
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 schema has no description for the date parameter (0% coverage). The description compensates by specifying the required format 'YYYY-MM-DD', adding useful semantic beyond the plain string type. However, it does not provide example values, valid ranges, or constraints (e.g., no future dates).
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 ('Get') and the resource ('Astronomy Picture of the Day for a specific date'). It includes the required date format (YYYY-MM-DD), distinguishing it from siblings like get_todays_space_photo and get_random_space_photo.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (get_random_space_photo, get_todays_space_photo). The date format hint is present, but there is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where this tool is preferred.
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?
Lists many specific checks but does not disclose error behaviors, supported languages beyond Python and JS/TS, or limitations. No annotations to supplement, so description carries partial burden.
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?
Concise two paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose, list of checks efficiently formatted. Slight redundancy but overall clean.
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 an output schema exists (not shown), description covers core purpose and parameters fairly well. Could mention supported languages beyond two, but sufficient for basic use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The path parameter is not described in the schema (0% coverage). The description only implies it's the codebase path, lacking details on file/directory expectation or format.
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 scans for code quality and style issues, listing specific checks. It distinguishes from sibling tools like scan_secrets or scan_dependencies by focusing on style and readability.
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 says 'Use this when asked to check code quality, readability, or style.' Provides clear context, though does not mention when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool runs multiple analyzers, implying a comprehensive but potentially heavy operation. However, it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or whether it modifies files, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.
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 concise at five sentences, with the purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, listing analyzers and usage context without unnecessary details.
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 complexity of a multi-pass scan and the existence of sibling tools for individual checks, the description adequately covers what the tool does and when to use it. It mentions specific analyzers and an external service (OSV.dev), but could add more about output format or performance impacts.
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 has one parameter 'path' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The tool description implies the path is a codebase directory, but it does not explicitly define the parameter's format or constraints, providing only marginal added meaning.
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 runs a full multi-pass security and quality scan, listing all included analyzers (secrets, OWASP, debug statements, code quality, style linting, dependencies). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_secrets or scan_code_quality, which are more specific.
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 says 'Use this when asked to review, audit, or scan a codebase for issues', providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or recommend alternative tools for narrower scans.
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?
The description discloses that the tool queries an external database (OSV.dev) and parses specific manifests, implying a read-only operation. However, without annotations, it doesn't elaborate on possible side effects, auth needs, or rate limits.
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 paragraphs with front-loaded purpose. No redundant information; 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?
Covers purpose, supported file types, database, and usage triggers. An output schema exists, so return format is not needed. Could add parameter details and error scenarios, but overall sufficient.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the 'path' parameter. It only implies it's a project path by context ('Scan a project's dependency manifests'), but does not clarify whether it's a file or directory, absolute or relative.
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 scans dependency manifests for CVEs via OSV.dev, listing specific file types. This distinguishes it from siblings like scan_codebase (code scanning) and scan_secrets (secret scanning).
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 says 'Use this when asked to check dependencies for vulnerabilities or CVEs.' While it doesn't specify when not to use, the listed file types and context provide sufficient guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It lists detectable secret types (AWS keys, GitHub tokens, etc.) but does not describe scanning behavior (e.g., recursion, file size limits, handling of non-code files). This is adequate for a simple tool but lacks behavioral depth.
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 short paragraphs. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose. Examples and usage are presented efficiently. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 only one parameter and an output schema (assumed to document return values), the description covers purpose and usage adequately. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., path not found) but is complete for typical 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 only parameter is 'path', which the description clarifies as 'a codebase directory'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning. However, it does not explain expected format (absolute/relative) or constraints (must be directory), which would improve semantic clarity.
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 ('Scan a codebase directory') and the resource ('exposed secrets, API keys, and credentials'). It lists specific examples, making the purpose unmistakable. Among siblings like scan_codebase, scan_code_quality, and scan_security_patterns, the focus on credentials distinguishes it well.
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 says 'Use this when asked to check for leaked credentials or secrets.' This provides a clear when-to-use clause. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings, which would strengthen guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool returns the APOD, but does not disclose potential failure scenarios (e.g., if no photo is available for today), data source, or side effects. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not fully 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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the tool has zero parameters and an output schema (providing return value details), the description is complete. It explains the core action and result without needing further elaboration.
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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. With no parameters, the description does not need to add param details. The baseline for 0 parameter tools is 4, indicating the description adds value through clear purpose without needing parameter explanations.
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 explicitly states the tool retrieves 'today's Astronomy Picture of the Day from NASA.' This clearly identifies the verb ('get'), resource ('astronomy picture of the day'), and scope ('today's'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_random_space_photo and get_space_photo_by_date.
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?
While no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, the tool's name and description inherently imply it is intended for the current day's photo. Siblings exist for other temporal queries, providing implicit context.
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-Factory MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/decagondev/MCP-Factory/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/decagondev/MCP-Factory)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/decagondev/MCP-Factory'

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