Model Safety MCP

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: broad report, scanner listing, heuristic inspection, two specific scanner backends, and directory aggregation. No overlap.
Naming Consistency3/5
Names mix patterns: some end with 'tool', others with 'scan' or 'inspect', and one is a phrase ('artifact_safety_report'). Inconsistent verb_noun structure.
Tool Count5/5
6 tools is well-scoped for a model safety MCP server. Each tool serves a distinct function without being excessive.
Completeness4/5
Covers major coverage areas: broad safety report, specific scanners, and directory scanning. Minor gap: no tool for updating scanner configurations.
Average 2.9/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- 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 'Run' and 'broadest available', but doesn't explain what the tool actually does (e.g., scans for malware, checks for vulnerabilities), what permissions are needed, whether it's destructive, or what the output looks like. 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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's action and scope without unnecessary detail.
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 of a safety scanning tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool does, how to use the parameters, what the output entails, and how it differs from siblings, making it inadequate for effective 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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters 'path' and 'url'. However, the description provides no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what they are for, how they relate to each other, or their expected formats. This fails to add meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Run') and the resource ('model artifact safety report'), but is vague about what constitutes a 'safety report' and what 'broadest available' means. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'deep_model_inspect' or 'modelscan_scan', which likely perform similar safety inspections.
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 'modelscan_scan' or 'picklescan_scan'. The phrase 'broadest available' implies it might be more comprehensive, but this is not explicit, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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. The description only states what the tool does at a high level ('Run modelscan'), without revealing any behavioral traits such as what 'modelscan' actually scans for (e.g., security vulnerabilities, malicious code), whether it's read-only or destructive, what permissions are needed, expected runtime, output format, or error conditions. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to understand the tool's 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 directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information about the action and target.
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 of a security scanning tool with no annotations, 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'modelscan' entails (e.g., scanning for what types of issues), what the output looks like, error handling, or usage constraints. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand and invoke the tool effectively.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'a local path or downloadable URL', which hints at the purpose of the 'path' and 'url' parameters but doesn't explain their semantics, constraints, or relationship (e.g., whether both can be provided, if one is required, what formats are accepted, or what happens if neither is given). This adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.
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 ('Run modelscan') and the target ('against a local path or downloadable URL'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'picklescan_scan' or 'deep_model_inspect', which likely perform similar security scanning functions on different targets or with different methodologies.
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 sibling tools like 'artifact_safety_report', 'deep_model_inspect', 'picklescan_scan', and 'scan_directory_tool' available, there's no indication of what makes 'modelscan_scan' the appropriate choice for a given scenario. No exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual recommendations are mentioned.
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 full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only or destructive, what output to expect, performance characteristics, or error handling. This leaves critical operational details unspecified for a tool with potential security implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity and front-loads the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
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, output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what picklescan is, what it scans for, output format, or error conditions. For a security/scanning tool among siblings with similar functions, 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.
Parameters2/5
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. It mentions 'local path or downloadable URL,' which loosely maps to the 'path' and 'url' parameters but doesn't explain their semantics, constraints, or interaction (e.g., whether both can be used, formats, examples). This adds minimal value beyond the bare parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Run picklescan') and target ('against a local path or downloadable URL'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify what picklescan does (e.g., security scanning, model analysis) or how it differs from sibling tools like modelscan_scan or scan_directory_tool, making it vague rather than specific.
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 the input types (local path or URL) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like modelscan_scan or artifact_safety_report. There's no indication of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with minimal context for 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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'heuristic inspection' which implies analysis rather than modification, but doesn't specify whether this is read-only, what permissions are needed, what happens during inspection, or what the output format might be. The description is too vague about the actual behavior beyond the high-level purpose.
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 gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for the complexity level, though it could benefit from being more informative while maintaining brevity.
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 2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool actually returns, how to interpret results, or provide any context about the inspection process beyond the high-level purpose.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters (path, url), the description provides no information about what these parameters mean, their relationship, or usage. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, leaving the agent to guess whether to provide a path, URL, or both for the inspection.
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 ('Run heuristic inspection') and target ('risky file types and embedded pickle members'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'modelscan_scan' or 'picklescan_scan', which appear related to scanning/inspection tasks.
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 the sibling tools (artifact_safety_report, modelscan_scan, picklescan_scan, scan_directory_tool). There's no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or specific contexts where this inspection method is preferred over others.
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 tool runs artifact_safety_report and aggregates findings, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what 'aggregate' entails (e.g., format, summarization). For a tool with no annotations, 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: 'Run artifact_safety_report across every file in a directory and aggregate the findings.' It has zero waste, with every word contributing to understanding the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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 (directory scanning with aggregation), no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format, error cases, performance implications, or how it interacts with sibling tools. For a tool that processes multiple files and aggregates results, more context is needed to use it effectively.
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 input schema has 1 parameter (path) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic context. The description adds minimal value by implying the path is to a directory ('every file in a directory'), but doesn't specify format (e.g., absolute/relative path), constraints, or examples. This is insufficient compensation for the low schema coverage, failing to fully document the parameter's meaning.
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: 'Run artifact_safety_report across every file in a directory and aggregate the findings.' It specifies the verb (run and aggregate), the resource (files in a directory), and the operation (artifact_safety_report). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like modelscan_scan or picklescan_scan, which might perform similar scanning operations on directories.
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 mentions artifact_safety_report as the underlying operation but doesn't explain when to choose this directory-level scan over individual file scans or other sibling tools like deep_model_inspect. There are no explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives beyond the implied artifact_safety_report.
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 indicates a safe read-only operation ('Show which scanner backends are installed and ready to use'), but lacks additional behavioral details such as whether it involves any external calls or potential side effects. Given no annotations, this is minimally adequate.
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, concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no superfluous words.
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 no parameters, no output schema, and a simple purpose, the description is sufficient. It could mention the return format, but it is not critical.
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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4.
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 'Show which scanner backends are installed and ready to use' uses a specific verb ('show') and resource ('scanner backends'), and it clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling scanning tools like modelscan_scan or picklescan_scan.
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 checking available backends, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any when-not conditions.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/itsalissonsilva/ModelSafetyMCP'

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