Skip to main content
Glama
just5ky

axur-mcp

by just5ky
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation4/5

    The tools are mostly distinct: 'tickets' handles search, list, and summary retrieval; 'ticket_details' provides deep single-ticket information; 'ticket_stats' covers statistics. However, there is potential overlap between 'tickets' get action and 'ticket_details', as both retrieve ticket info, but descriptions suggest different detail levels.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent 'ticket_' prefix with descriptive suffixes: 'tickets', 'ticket_details', 'ticket_stats'. The naming is predictable and uses snake_case uniformly.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 3 tools, the count is at the lower borderline. While the 'tickets' tool bundles multiple actions (list, get, bulk_get, history, types), the overall set feels slightly thin for a platform that likely involves CRUD and lifecycle management.

    Completeness2/5

    The tools are purely read-only (retrieve, search, stats). Missing operations to create, update, delete, or take action on tickets (e.g., takedown) is a significant gap for a security platform, limiting agent ability to respond to threats.

  • Average 3.5/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 2.8/5.

    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 is passing

  • 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?

    The description implies read-only operations ('search, retrieve, inspect'), but it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive. There are no annotations to cover this, so the description carries the burden. It fails to disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects, leaving behavioral traits ambiguous.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness3/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is structured as a list of actions but is somewhat verbose. It front-loads the main purpose but could be more concise by focusing on the primary 'list' action and noting sub-actions briefly. Each sentence provides some value, but the length could be reduced without losing clarity.

    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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, multiple actions) and lack of output schema, the description does not sufficiently explain what the tool returns for each action. It describes input but not output structure or behavior, leaving gaps for the agent to understand the full context of 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?

    The input schema has 100% description coverage, meaning each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds minimal new semantic value beyond repeating the action list. The baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage, and the description does not exceed it.

    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 is for searching, retrieving, and inspecting tickets, and it enumerates specific actions (list, get, bulk_get, history, types). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools 'ticket_details' and 'ticket_stats', which are likely more specialized.

    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 'ticket_details' and 'ticket_stats', the agent has no criteria to decide which tool to invoke. The description only lists actions without context on when each is appropriate.

    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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Retrieve', implying read-only, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, error handling, or rate limits. The list of data types is informative but does not describe behavioral traits.

    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 efficiently lists all data categories, front-loading the core purpose. No wasted words; every part 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 output schema and three parameters (one enum), the description adequately enumerates the possible actions and their return types. However, it lacks structural details of the response (e.g., format), which is acceptable due to the clear mapping between actions and data types.

    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 adds a high-level summary of what each action returns, but it does not provide details beyond the schema, making it marginally helpful. No parameter semantics are elaborated beyond the schema descriptions.

    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 detailed ticket information and lists specific data categories (fields, texts, snapshots, etc.), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings 'tickets' (list) and 'ticket_stats' (statistics) by focusing on a single ticket's details.

    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 use for accessing details of a specific ticket, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings or provide exclusions. No alternatives are mentioned beyond the implied differentiation.

    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 describes the types of stats and the date constraint, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or whether it has any side effects. The behavioral traits are mostly inferred as safe 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 two sentences: the first breaks down what is retrieved, and the second gives a critical constraint. It is front-loaded, efficient, and 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?

    Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers the purpose and a key constraint but lacks details on return format, pagination, or potential errors. Some ambiguity remains for the agent.

    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 100% with all parameters described. The description adds value by emphasizing the 90-day maximum date range and listing the action types, which helps the agent understand the purpose beyond the schema definitions.

    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 retrieves Axur ticket statistics and enumerates several categories (counts by status, incidents by threat type, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings 'ticket_details' and 'tickets' by focusing on aggregated metrics rather than individual tickets.

    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 mentions the 90-day date range constraint, which is a critical usage guideline. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools, though the tool name and content imply it's for statistics.

    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

axur-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

axur-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/just5ky/axur-mcp'

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