Skip to main content
Glama
lixiaowww

veragent-mcp

by lixiaowww
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a distinct purpose: checking a single tool, listing trusted tools, and scanning a full stack. No overlap.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow the consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case, making them predictable.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools is appropriate for a security verification server, covering individual check, listing, and stack scan without excess.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool surface covers the main verification operations, though a detailed audit or reporting tool could enhance completeness.

  • Average 3.8/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 3 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?

    No annotations provided, so description must disclose behaviors. It only mentions listing with optional filter; no info on trust criteria, authentication requirements, side effects, or output behavior.

    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?

    One sentence, no fluff. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, which is acceptable for a simple tool but could be more informative.

    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?

    For a tool with 2 simple params and no output schema, the description provides the core action but omits output details (e.g., list structure, pagination) and trust definition. Adequate but not thorough.

    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 coverage, description must compensate. It explains the query parameter superficially ('optionally filtered by a search query') but does not describe the limit parameter or the expected format/behavior of the query.

    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's function: listing the most trusted MCP tools with optional search filtering. It distinguishes from siblings like check_tool_trust (specific trust check) and scan_mcp_stack (stack scan).

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. Lacks context for when filtering is appropriate or any caveats.

    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?

    With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions checking trust score and audit state but does not detail the response format, whether it's a read-only operation, or any side effects. Adequate but minimal.

    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 sentences with no redundant information. The action verb 'Check' is front-loaded, and every word adds value. Highly efficient.

    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 tool with one parameter and an output schema (assumed to document return values), the description is nearly complete. A minor gap is lack of behavioral details, but overall sufficient for an agent to use 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?

    Only one parameter 'name' with 0% schema documentation. The description adds 'by name', clarifying the parameter's role, but does not provide format or examples. Compensates partially for the lack of 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 it checks the Veragent trust score and audit state for a named MCP tool/server/agent. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_trusted_tools' (listing) and 'scan_mcp_stack' (scanning), providing a specific verb+resource.

    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 instructs to use 'BEFORE installing or recommending an MCP tool to verify it is safe', giving clear context for when to use. While no explicit when-not or alternatives, the sibling names imply alternatives for other tasks.

    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?

    With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the action (security scoring) and output (risk levels, summary) but omits side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. Adequate but not robust for a read-like 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?

    Two sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded and 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?

    Given the output schema exists, the description appropriately summarizes return values. It covers the essential input and output for the tool's complexity. Could optionally mention prerequisites but not required.

    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?

    Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by specifying the parameter should be a 'parsed mcp_settings.json object (or just its mcpServers block)', which clarifies the expected shape beyond the generic 'object' type.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description uses a specific verb 'Score' and clearly identifies the resource 'whole MCP stack' along with the input ('mcp_settings.json') and output ('per-server risk levels and a summary'). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings which focus on individual tool trust.

    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 states when to use: when you have a parsed mcp_settings.json object or its mcpServers block. Does not provide explicit exclusions or direct comparisons to sibling tools, but the context makes the intended use clear.

    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

veragent-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

veragent-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/lixiaowww/veragent-mcp'

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