JFrog MCP

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation: health check, capabilities, repository listing, path listing, item metadata, properties, stats, tree traversal, file search, and latest files. The only potential ambiguity is between get_item_info and get_item_properties, but the descriptions clarify that info is general metadata while properties are specific key-value pairs.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent get_/list_/find_ verb-noun pattern (e.g., get_item_properties, list_repositories, find_files). Minor deviations exist: jfrog_ping and jfrog_capabilities are verb/noun alone, and jfrog_latest_files uses an adjective instead of a verb, but the overall style is coherent and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
Ten tools is well within the ideal range for a focused MCP server. Each tool addresses a specific task within the artifact repository domain, and the count feels neither sparse nor overwhelming.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers the read-only/query surface thoroughly: repository listing, path browsing, metadata, properties, statistics, tree traversal, file search, and recent files. It lacks write operations (create/update/delete), but the tools are clearly scoped to inspection and discovery, so the absence does not create dead ends for its apparent purpose.
Average 3.6/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 5 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral details such as pagination via cursor, depth defaults, or that it uses the storage-list API. This is a minimal 'list' description that contributes little beyond the annotations.
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 directly states the tool's purpose with no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded and immediately 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?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters incl. cursor/depth/limit, output schema, and annotations), the description is only minimally viable. The schema and annotations fill in many details, but the description lacks an overview of pagination, configurable options, or overall behavior, making it just adequate.
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%, and each parameter has a thorough description (e.g., path accepts root forms, limit clamping, cursor opacity). The description itself adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies—schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific action ('List') and a clear resource ('files and folders under one JFrog repository path'). This distinguishes it from siblings like jfrog_list_repositories and jfrog_get_tree, though it doesn't specify whether the listing is recursive or immediate.
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 this tool versus alternatives such as jfrog_get_tree or jfrog_find_files. There are no exclusions or context about typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
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?
Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description only needs to add extra behavioral context. It adds 'client-side modified timestamp sorting,' which is useful, but does not mention limits, clamping, or other runtime behavior beyond what schema fields imply.
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, tightly worded sentence that conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and highly concise.
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?
Despite the rich schema, annotations, and output schema, the description is too minimal for a 10-parameter tool with many siblings. It lacks usage context, prerequisites, or any narrative that would help an agent decide when to invoke it. The schema covers the 'what' but the description does not cover the 'when' or 'why'.
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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, making the baseline 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already provides comprehensive documentation for each parameter.
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 finds latest files sorted by client-side modified timestamp, providing a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from generic file search. However, it could be more explicit about the repository context, but that is covered in the schema.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like jfrog_find_files exist, and the description does not explain what makes this tool the better choice for latest-file scenarios.
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?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is known. The description adds scope ('one file or folder') but no details on behavior like statistics aggregation, time ranges, or potential errors. It is not contradictory.
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, short sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks usage context and does not explain what 'statistics' encompasses, though the output schema may cover that.
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 provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both path and repo_key, including validation rules. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers.
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 action ('Get') and resource ('download statistics') for a single JFrog file or folder. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on statistics, but does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 choose this tool over other siblings such as jfrog_get_item_info or jfrog_list_path. It lacks conditions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tree is 'bounded' and uses 'storage metadata traversal', which provides some behavioral context, but no additional details on ordering, pagination, or exception handling. No contradiction with annotations.
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 that directly states the core function without any wasted words or redundant details.
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?
The tool has 6 parameters, all schema-documented, and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. However, the description leaves 'bounded' somewhat ambiguous and lacks any contextual guidance about when to use a tree traversal versus a flat list or other sibling tool, making it adequate but not fully 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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already documented in detail including defaults and validation rules. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies a clear resource ('bounded file/folder tree') with a method ('storage metadata traversal'). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like jfrog_list_path.
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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as jfrog_list_path, jfrog_find_files, and jfrog_latest_files exist, but the description offers no comparison or exclusionary 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context with 'response shaping,' but does not mention pagination via cursor, AQL pattern matching, or that results can be summarized—though these are discoverable in 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?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, making it maximally concise. It does not repeat schema details and earns its place by stating the tool's purpose in a straightforward manner.
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 that the schema documents all parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations cover the safety profile, the description is largely sufficient. However, the absence of usage guidance and the minimal overview of what 'generic filters' encompasses leaves some gaps for a tool with 11 parameters.
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 across all 11 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'generic filters' provides a high-level hint but doesn't add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already explains.
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 uses the verb 'Find' with the resource 'files' and specifies 'generic filters and response shaping', making the core function clear. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with them, so it falls short of full differentiation, but the phrase 'generic filters' suggests a flexible search capability.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of jfrog_list_path, jfrog_latest_files, or other siblings. The description only states what it does, not the appropriate context, exclusions, or alternatives.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the 'one file or folder' scoping constraint, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what 'metadata' includes, return format, or any potential side effects, though none are expected given read-only annotations.
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 front-loads the core action and resource. Every word contributes; there is no fluff or repetition of schema fields.
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 read-only tool with a complete input schema, output schema, and clear annotations, the description is sufficient. It states the exact scope ('one file or folder') and purpose. It could be more explicit about what metadata is returned, but the output schema likely covers that, so missing detail is acceptable.
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%, so the input schema already fully explains both parameters (repo_key and path) with constraints. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'metadata for one JFrog file or folder', which defines the tool's scope. It differentiates from list-like siblings by specifying 'one', but does not explicitly contrast with similarly focused tools like jfrog_get_item_properties or jfrog_get_item_stats, so it misses full sibling distinction.
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 such as jfrog_get_item_properties or jfrog_get_item_stats. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer context. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., behavior for repository root, property key filtering, or error handling), but it does not contradict the annotations and appropriately identifies the operation as read-only.
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 with no filler or redundant content. It earns its place by stating the essential purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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 read-only nature, the output schema, and comprehensive parameter descriptions, the minimal description is sufficient. However, it lacks any contextual cues about property key filtering or how the path parameter relates to the repository root, which are left entirely to the schema.
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?
All three parameters have extensive descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description itself adds no parameter-level detail. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic load.
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 'Get properties for one JFrog file or folder' with a specific verb, resource, and object. It distinguishes itself from siblings like jfrog_get_item_stats and jfrog_list_path by focusing on properties for a single item.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as jfrog_get_item_info or jfrog_find_files. It relies entirely on the tool name and minimal description, offering only implied usage without exclusions or alternatives.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds the conceptual content of the response but does not disclose the live_probe network-call behavior (though that is covered in the schema). No contradiction with annotations.
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 filler. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it 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 the simplicity of the tool, the description, combined with the rich schema and annotations, covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, and safety. A minor gap is the lack of explicit usage guidance versus sibling tools, but the purpose is clear enough that this is not a significant omission.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, and the schema already fully documents each parameter, including the dependency of repo_key on live_probe.
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 'Describe' with clear resources: 'JFrog MCP limits, compatibility behavior, and enabled features'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on data retrieval or connectivity (e.g., jfrog_ping, jfrog_get_item_info).
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 clear context for when to use the tool—when one needs to know the JFrog MCP server's limits, compatibility, and features. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, but the purpose is unambiguous enough to infer usage.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint:idempotentHint, and destructiveHint:false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the behavioral trait of cursor-based pagination, which is not in annotations and is useful context for the agent. It does not go into rate limits or error behavior, but the annotations lower the bar.
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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word is informative. 'List JFrog repositories with optional filters and cursor pagination' is concise and complete for the tool's core purpose, with zero waste.
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 5 optional params, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is adequate. It explains the core listing function and pagination, but could be more complete by mentioning how filters interact (e.g., AND combination) or providing guidance on use cases. Still, the presence of output schema and annotations fills many gaps.
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%, with each parameter (type, limit, cursor, project, package_type) having a clear description. The tool description only says 'optional filters' without adding any new meaning, so it does not improve on what the schema already provides. Baseline of 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 lists JFrog repositories, using the specific verb 'list' and resource 'repositories'. It distinguishes from siblings like jfrog_list_path and jfrog_find_files, and adds scope with 'optional filters and cursor pagination'.
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 listing repositories and mentions optional filters and pagination, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives (e.g., when to prefer jfrog_find_files or jfrog_list_path). No exclusions or alternative references are given, so guidance is only implicit.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the crucial behavior that it does not return secrets, which goes beyond annotations and is valuable for security-awareness.
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 stale or redundant text. It efficiently states the action, the target, and a key safety constraint.
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?
For a zero-parameter ping tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the operation, safety, and distinguishes from siblings; return values are covered by the output schema.
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?
There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and the description adds no parameter-specific information. According to the rubric, a zero-param tool gets a baseline of 4, and no further clarification is needed.
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 the specific verb 'Check' and identifies the resource as 'JFrog URL and token authentication,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on items or lists. It also adds the important nuance of not returning secrets.
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 the tool is for verifying connectivity/authentication but does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. No exclusions are provided, but the purpose is self-evident for a ping tool.
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:

[![jfrog-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mSaeedS/jfrog-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mSaeedS/jfrog-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![jfrog-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mSaeedS/jfrog-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mSaeedS/jfrog-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/mSaeedS/jfrog-mcp'

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