mcp-trove

by mauriziomocci

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.2.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation or resource category (secrets, snippets, vault management). There is no overlap or ambiguity between tools like trove_add_secret and trove_get_secret, or trove_list and trove_search.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case, prefixed by 'trove_'. Examples: trove_add_secret, trove_get_secret, trove_list, trove_search, trove_doctor. No mixed conventions.
Tool Count5/5
With 10 tools, the server covers initialization, secrets management (CRUD), snippet management (add/remove), indexing, listing, searching, and auditing. The scope is well-defined and each tool earns its place.
Completeness3/5
Secrets have full lifecycle (add, get, update, remove), but snippets lack explicit get and update tools. While trove_search provides full-text access over snippets, the absence of dedicated read and update operations for snippets is a notable gap.
Average 4.1/5 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?
The description only states the action without detailing side effects, permissions, or whether it is read-only. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, but fails to disclose if regeneration overwrites files or requires specific authorization.
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, concise and to the point. 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?
The description is brief and covers the basic action. However, it lacks context about what 'frontmatter' and 'secret metadata' are, and what the regeneration entails (e.g., does it require prior initialization?). This makes it minimally complete for a simple tool with no parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description need not elaborate on parameters. It is fully adequate for a parameterless 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?
The description uses a specific verb 'Regenerate' and resource 'INDEX.md', clearly stating the tool's action. It distinguishes from siblings like 'trove_add_secret' or 'trove_search' which have different purposes.
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 alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. The description is minimal for a tool with no annotation support.
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 function. No wasted 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?
The description explains what is returned (entries with tags and paths) but does not mention ordering, pagination, or behavior on empty results. For a simple list tool without output schema, it is adequate but lacks completeness on edge cases.
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?
With zero parameters, the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline 4 is appropriate as per guidelines.
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 action (list), the resource (entries: snippets and secrets), and the content (tags and paths). It distinguishes from siblings like trove_search (which would filter) and trove_get_secret (single entry).
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 retrieving all entries, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like trove_search or trove_get_secret. No when-not-to-use or alternative naming.
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 encryption in memory with age, that plaintext never touches disk, and the existence of a cleartext metadata sidecar. It does not contradict any annotations. The behavior is fairly transparent, though it omits details on return values or error handling.
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, each packed with meaningful information. No fluff or redundancy. It efficiently communicates the core action, encryption method, and prerequisite. The structure is front-loaded with the main 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?
Given the complexity (6 params, nested object, no output schema), the description covers the encryption process, path structure, and prerequisite. However, it lacks any mention of return values or what the agent receives after execution, which is a notable gap since there is no output schema to fill that gap.
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 global context (e.g., fields are encrypted inside payload, tags are non-sensitive) but does not significantly enhance individual parameter understanding beyond the schema's own descriptions. It does not introduce new parameter-specific semantics.
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 saves an encrypted secret under a specific path pattern (secrets/<category>/<slug>.age) and explains the metadata sidecar. The verb 'Save' and resource 'encrypted secret' are explicit, and the description distinguishes from siblings like trove_get_secret and trove_update_secret by focusing on creation and encryption 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 mentions a prerequisite (requires recipients in trove.toml) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like trove_add_snippet or trove_update_secret. The usage context is implied through the description of encryption and storage, but no direct when/when-not guidance is provided.
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 key behaviors: requires private key for decryption, needs recipients for re-encryption, and preserves created date. Missing details on permissions or failure modes, but provides substantial 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?
Two sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value: first states action and scope, second gives prerequisites and side effects. No fluff.
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 description covers operation and prerequisites but lacks return value information (no output schema). Given complexity with nested objects, missing details on error handling or idempotency make it adequate but incomplete.
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 operational context (e.g., re-encryption), but does not enhance individual parameter understanding 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 updates an existing secret, specifying actions like set/remove fields, change notes/tags, and re-encrypt. It distinguishes from siblings like trove_add_secret (creates new) and trove_remove (deletes).
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 modifying a secret without recreating it, but lacks explicit when-to-use or alternatives like comparing with trove_add_secret. It provides some context but no exclusions.
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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: decrypting, returning fields, requiring a private key, and stating that values are never written to disk. This provides clarity on safety and side effects, though could mention potential errors.
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, 24 words, front-loaded with action. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.
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 retrieval tool with two parameters, the description covers the main actions and constraints. It mentions return values and lack of disk writes, but could be slightly more explicit about the scope (single secret by name). No output schema exists, but the description mitigates this.
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 both parameters already described. The description adds no further detail on parameters, but the overall context ('Decrypt a secret') reinforces their purpose. 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 uses a specific verb ('Decrypt a secret and return its fields') and clearly identifies the resource (secret). It distinguishes from sibling tools like trove_add_secret and trove_update_secret by focusing on retrieval.
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 a prerequisite ('Requires the private key') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like trove_list or trove_search. Usage context is implied but no exclusions or explicit alternatives are provided.
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 must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions index rebuilding and secret sidecar deletion, which are important side effects. However, it does not address permanence, permissions, or dependencies beyond what's stated, leaving some gaps.
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, front-loaded with the core action, and efficiently covers the essentials without any wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a removal tool, the description covers the main action and distinguishes behavior for secrets. It does not explain return values (no output schema) or possible failures, but given the simplicity and 100% schema coverage, it is fairly 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?
All 5 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description repeats 'name' and 'kind' in context but adds no new semantic information beyond the schema. 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 action ('remove an entry by name'), the resource ('entry'), and provides specific detail about secrets (payload and metadata sidecar deletion). It distinguishes from sibling tools like trove_add_secret and trove_update_secret.
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 removal but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context signals show sibling tools like trove_add_snippet and trove_update_secret, but no comparative advice is given.
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 responsibility. It lists all created files, notes idempotency, and mentions return values including a key-backup warning. However, it could be more explicit about behavior when TROVE_PATH already exists or when files are already present, though idempotency implies safe re-run.
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 that front-load the action and immediately list deliverables. Every word adds value; no filler or repetition.
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 tool with no output schema, the description effectively communicates what the tool does and what it returns (paths, recipient, warning). It covers the full scope of a vault initialization task and aligns with the sibling set.
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 input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description reinforces parameter roles (e.g., generate keypair vs. use recipient) and adds behavioral context like idempotency and return values, providing value 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?
The description clearly states the tool scaffolds a trove vault with specific actions: creating directories, generating or registering an age keypair, and writing several files. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on initialization, which is a unique task among the listed tools.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling names imply this is for initial setup, there is no guidance on prerequisites or scenarios where other tools are more appropriate.
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, so description carries the full burden. It discloses the file path structure, that the tool rebuilds the index after saving, and hints at side effects via the overwrite parameter. It could mention more about slug derivation or frontmatter format, but the key behaviors are covered.
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, no filler. First sentence defines the core action and destination; second provides a critical formatting instruction. Every word 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?
With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the key path logic and body formatting. It doesn't detail the frontmatter structure or slug derivation, but these are implied by Markdown conventions. The tool's complexity is moderate, and the description covers the essential usage aspects.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how parameters combine into a path (snippets/<domain>/<subpath>/<slug>.md) and by constraining body_markdown to be pre-segmented. This provides meaning beyond the schema's simple property 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?
Description clearly states the action (save a plaintext snippet), the resource (Markdown with frontmatter), and the destination path pattern (snippets/<domain>/<subpath>/<slug>.md). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like trove_add_secret by focusing on code snippets.
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 gives explicit formatting guidance for body_markdown ('already segmented (prose outside fences, code in fenced blocks)'), which helps proper use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like trove_add_secret, though the purpose is clear enough from context.
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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states that for secrets, only metadata (title/tags/category) is searched, never values. This is a key behavioral disclosure. However, it could mention case sensitivity, partial match behavior, or result format.
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, front-loading the action ('Search the vault') and then providing the most important behavioral rules. There is no wasted text, 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 three parameters (all described), no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains the core search behavior and differences between snippets and secrets. It could be improved by mentioning the return format or pagination, but it is largely complete for an agent to understand how to invoke the tool correctly.
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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds meaning by explaining how 'query' behaves differently for snippets (full-text) vs secrets (metadata-only), and summarizes the purpose of 'tags' and 'kind' filtering. This goes 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 it searches the vault, specifies different behaviors for snippets (full-text) and secrets (metadata-only), and allows filtering by tags and kind. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'trove_list' or 'trove_get_secret' which have different purposes.
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 implies when to use this tool (searching, filtering) and provides context that it searches differently based on kind. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for typical use cases.
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?
The description explicitly states it is 'read-only', lists the specific checks performed, and describes the output ('findings with severity and fix'). This fully discloses the behavioral traits beyond what structured fields provide (none exist).
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 concise sentences, front-loading the key purpose ('Read-only health and safety audit') followed by a list of checks and output. Every sentence earns its place with no waste.
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 tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: the audit scope, specific checks, and that the output includes severity and fix. Completeness is adequate for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 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 it performs a 'Read-only health and safety audit' and lists specific checks (missing key, cleartext secrets, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on secrets and snippets.
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 implies use for auditing repository health, and the sibling tool list shows other tools are for operations on secrets, making the use case clear. However, no explicit when-not or alternatives are stated.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-trove MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mauriziomocci/mcp-trove/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mauriziomocci/mcp-trove)

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/mauriziomocci/mcp-trove'

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