broke2built-skills-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.1.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct area: email verification, email auth, domain intel, DNS, IP geo, WHOIS, SEO, crypto balance, source verification, and VAT check. There is minimal overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency3/5
Names are all lowercase with underscores but mix patterns: some start with a verb (verify_email, source_verify) while others start with a noun (email_auth, domain_intel, dns_lookup, etc.). This inconsistency, while still readable, deviates from a strict verb_noun norm.
Tool Count5/5
With 10 tools, the server provides a well-scoped collection covering diverse verification tasks without being overwhelming. Each tool earns its place.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers common verification needs (email, domain, DNS, SEO, blockchain, VAT) but lacks others like SSL certificate checks or social media verification. While not severely incomplete, some notable gaps exist.
Average 4/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 6 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

Behavior4/5
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 discloses that the tool is a 'free taste tier' with rate limits and explains how to unlock higher usage. It implies a read-only, non-destructive behavior (gathering intelligence). Could add details like data freshness or API dependencies, but overall sufficient for a non-critical tool.
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, with the key purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every word adds value: the categories list, rate limit info, and env variable hint. No filler or redundancy.
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 implied by 'domain intelligence' covering multiple categories (mail provider, deliverability, tech stack, metadata, signals), the description is too brief. It lacks any detail on return values, structure, or example outputs. An output schema is absent. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, more context is needed to set expectations.
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 'domain' with description 'The domain to analyze', covering 100% of parameters. The description adds that the tool analyzes a domain for various categories, which aligns with the schema but does not provide additional semantic value beyond the schema itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 provides 'domain intelligence' and lists specific categories: mail provider, deliverability, tech stack, metadata, signals. It uses a specific verb-resource combination, though it could more explicitly state the action (e.g., 'analyze' or 'retrieve'). Distinguishes from sibling tools like verify_email or dns_lookup by offering a comprehensive view, but does not explicitly contrast them.
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 mentions rate limits (20 calls/day/IP) and how to increase them via the ALLY_KEY env variable, providing usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool compared to siblings (e.g., 'Use domain_intel for a broad overview; for specific checks like email verification, use verify_email'). The guidance is implied but not explicit.
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 burden. It discloses rate limits and the 'free taste tier' but does not mention authentication requirements beyond the optional environment variable, nor any read-only or destructive behavior. It adds some value beyond the schema.
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, highly efficient. The first sentence front-loads what the tool does, the second provides critical usage limits. Every sentence earns its place.
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 simple input (single URL, no output schema), the description covers the key outputs (title/meta, H1 count, etc.) and rate limits. It lacks details on error handling or response format but is adequate for a straightforward tool.
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% for the single 'url' parameter with description 'The url to analyze'. The description adds no further meaning, such as URL format or validation rules, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.
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 provides an 'On-page SEO snapshot' listing specific elements like title/meta, H1 count, canonical, OpenGraph, image-alt coverage, and graded issues. It differentiates from sibling tools (email/domain/IP) by its specific focus on SEO auditing.
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 only includes rate limit information ('20 calls/day/IP', 'set ALLY_KEY env for 100/day free') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses rate limits (20 calls/day/IP, 100/day with env var) and the need for an environment variable. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what errors may occur (e.g., invalid domain), or any side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 concise: one sentence for the main action and a parenthetical for rate limits. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate lines), but effective.
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, the description adequately describes the return types (geolocation, ASN/ISP, hosting org). It lacks specific field names or error handling details, but for a simple lookup tool with one parameter, it is sufficiently complete.
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 only parameter 'domain' is described in the schema as 'The domain to analyze'. The description adds value by explaining what will be computed from this domain (IP resolution, geolocation, ASN/ISP, hosting org), going beyond the schema's simple label.
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 verb 'Resolve' and the resource 'domain/host to its IP', and lists specific return data (geolocation, ASN/ISP, hosting org). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dns_lookup (which likely only returns IP) and domain_intel (which may focus on domain registration).
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 when IP geolocation or ASN/ISP info is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings. No mention of prerequisites or when not to use it. Moderate guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses live behavior, specific checks, and rate limits (20 calls/day/IP default, 100/day with ALLY_KEY). No contradiction with annotations (none).
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 focused sentence with a parenthetical for limits. Every word adds value, front-loaded with the tool's purpose.
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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose and limitations. Missing details about return format but still adequately complete for agent selection.
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% but the description adds meaning by explaining what verification steps are applied to the email parameter, going beyond the schema's simple 'The email to analyze'.
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 performs live email verification including syntax, MX, disposable, and role-account checks. It distinguishes itself from siblings like email_auth and domain_intel by specifying concrete verification 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?
No guidance is given on when to use verify_email versus its siblings (e.g., email_auth, domain_intel). The description mentions rate limits but lacks context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description discloses rate limits (20 calls/day/IP, upgradeable with ALLY_KEY), indicating it's a read-only query tool. Describes output data types. Could mention data freshness or response format, but overall transparent about behavior and limitations.
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: first explains purpose and data, second specifies rate limits and key configuration. Front-loaded with core info, no unnecessary words. Highly concise and well-structured.
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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, data fields, and usage limits. Lacks explicit mention of return format (likely JSON) but is fairly complete for a simple tool. Minor gap: no mention of error handling or data staleness.
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 has one parameter (domain) with a clear description. Coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds context about the fields returned but does not elaborate on the parameter beyond the schema. Acceptable for a simple single-parameter 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?
Description clearly states it provides domain registration intel via RDAP, listing specific data fields (created/expires, age, registrar, status, nameservers). It distinguishes from siblings like domain_intel and dns_lookup by specifying the protocol (RDAP) and exact data provided.
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?
Provides context on rate limits and API key usage for higher tier, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over its siblings (e.g., when RDAP data is preferred over DNS or general domain intel). Implied usage for domain registration details, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool checks SPF, DMARC, DKIM, and gives a verdict, plus rate limits and env variable for higher tier. Missing details on response format or error handling, but core behavior is clear and adds context.
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: first sentence states the functionality, second sentence provides rate limit and environment variable info. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no unnecessary words.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should explain return values. It mentions 'spoofability verdict' but not its format or contents. Additionally, error cases (e.g., invalid domain) are not addressed. For a simple tool, it's partially complete but leaves gaps.
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 has one param (domain) with description 'The domain to analyze' (100% coverage). The description adds meaning by specifying which authentication records are checked (SPF, DMARC, DKIM) and the spoofability verdict, going beyond the schema's generic description.
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 audits email authentication (SPF, DMARC, DKIM with common selectors) and provides a spoofability verdict. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like verify_email or dns_lookup by specifying the unique function.
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 provides rate limit info but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools (e.g., verify_email, dns_lookup). No exclusions or use-cases are stated beyond the basic audit function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
In the absence of annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: rate limits, environment variable for quota increase, and the gas-tracker concept for 'all' chain. It does not detail error handling or response format, but for a read-only balance check this is 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?
Two efficient sentences: first encapsulates the core function, second adds essential usage limits. No redundant or verbose phrasing. Every word serves a purpose.
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 simple tool with no output schema, the description should clarify expected return format (e.g., map of chain→balance). It only mentions 'Native balance', leaving the agent to guess the structure. Also missing error cases or prerequisites beyond the key.
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 minimal value beyond the schema: it contextualizes 'all' as gas-tracker but does not elaborate on input format or constraints. It repeats schema info without significant enrichment.
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 purpose: retrieving native balance for one address across 5 EVM chains in a single call. It lists specific chains and mentions the 'all' option for gas-tracker, distinguishing it clearly from unrelated sibling tools.
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 provides usage limits (20 calls/day/IP, upgradeable via ALLY_KEY) which guides the agent on rate constraints. It does not explicitly mention when to use versus alternatives, but sibling tools are unrelated, so no confusion arises.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description discloses rate limits and the all-in-one nature. As a read-only operation, no side effects exist, so transparency is 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?
Two sentences: first covers what it does, second covers rate limits. Front-loaded and no redundancy.
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 low complexity (one required param, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose and constraints. Could mention return format or errors, but not critical.
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% (one parameter 'domain' with description). The description adds no further parameter detail beyond the schema, so baseline of 3.
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 performs DNS lookups (A, AAAA, MX, TXT, NS, CNAME, CAA records) in one call. It distinguishes from sibling tools like whois_rdap or domain_intel by focusing on DNS record types.
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?
Provides explicit rate limit information (20 calls/day/IP, 100/day with ALLY_KEY), which guides usage. Does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the purpose is distinct enough.
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, description carries full burden. Discloses rate limits and registry source, but lacks details on error behavior or authentication requirements beyond the hint about ALLY_KEY.
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 plus a parenthetical. No wasted words; main purpose is front-loaded and immediately clear.
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 one parameter, no output schema, and simple semantics, the description is mostly complete. It explains purpose, example, and limits. Could mention what happens on invalid format or network errors.
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 covers 100% of parameter description. The description adds value by providing an example of the expected VAT format (e.g., BE0403170701), clarifying the syntax beyond the schema.
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?
Clearly states the tool verifies EU VAT numbers against the official VIES registry and returns validity, registered name & address. Distinguishes from unrelated siblings (email, domain, DNS checks).
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?
Provides usage context via rate limits (20 calls/day/IP, 100/day with key). No explicit alternatives given, but siblings are clearly different domains, so no confusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, but the description explicitly describes behavioral traits: it checks live status, final URL, title, and official publisher status, and includes rate limits (20/day/IP, 100/day with key). This fully meets the transparency need.
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 extremely concise: two sentences that cover functionality and rate limits. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key outputs and rate limits. It could mention error handling or output format, but it's reasonably complete.
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% with a clear description for 'url'. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning (calls it 'cited source URL'), but no additional format or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 purpose: verifying a cited source URL with specific outputs (live status, final URL, title, official publisher status). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like verify_email and domain_intel.
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 context of 'verify a cited source URL' implies usage for URL verification. The rate limit info helps the agent understand call constraints. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentioned.
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

broke2built-skills-mcp MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

[![broke2built-skills-mcp MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lordbasilaiassistant-sudo/broke2built-skills-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lordbasilaiassistant-sudo/broke2built-skills-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![broke2built-skills-mcp MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lordbasilaiassistant-sudo/broke2built-skills-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lordbasilaiassistant-sudo/broke2built-skills-mcp)

shields.io Endpoint

For READMEs with an existing badge row. Append &style=flat-square (or any other shields.io style) to match the rest, and &metric=tools, &metric=maintenance or &metric=claim to badge a different dimension.

[![broke2built-skills-mcp MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://img.shields.io/endpoint?url=https%3A%2F%2Fglama.ai%2Fmcp%2Fservers%2Flordbasilaiassistant-sudo%2Fbroke2built-skills-mcp%2Fbadges%2Fshields.json)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lordbasilaiassistant-sudo/broke2built-skills-mcp)

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/lordbasilaiassistant-sudo/broke2built-skills-mcp'

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