TrustHarness

by ofirtro

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: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: reading issues, PRs, files, recording commands/comments/commits, approving, and merging. The boundaries between tools are clear, with no overlapping purposes that could cause misselection.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., get_issue, run_command, merge_pull_request). The minor use of 'read_file' instead of 'get_file' is still in the same style and does not introduce inconsistency.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for the apparent domain of simulating a repository workflow. Each tool earns its place, and the count is within the ideal range for a focused server.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the main PR lifecycle: reading issues/PRs, simulating commands/comments/commits, requesting approval, and merging. Minor gaps exist, such as lacking a way to list resources or modify files, but these are not critical for the core workflow.
Average 2.9/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 2.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the push is 'simulated,' which hints at a non-real action, but it does not explain side effects, whether state is modified, or what the response looks like. The lack of detail on behavior is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence, five words), which is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. While it is front-loaded, it fails to provide enough substance to be useful, similar to the 'Process' example in the calibration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a non-trivial action (push simulation), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not cover prerequisites, side effects, result format, or relationship to other tools, making it inadequate for an agent to use safely and correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description provides no explanation of the 'message' or 'content' parameters, leaving them entirely undocumented. The agent must guess their meaning, which is especially problematic given 'content' is not self-explanatory.
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 'Record' and identifies the resource as a 'simulated commit push.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_issue, merge_pull_request, and run_command. However, it does not elaborate on what 'record' entails, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's exact function.
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 or when to prefer alternatives. The description simply states what it does without mentioning any context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'merge_pull_request' or 'run_command'.
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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'issue approval' without disclosing whether this triggers side effects, requires permissions, is reversible, or returns any result. The name 'request_approval' suggests a request while the description implies granting, adding to the opacity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is too terse to convey necessary details. The structure is a simple phrase, acceptable for brevity but not optimal given the lack of other documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description must be more complete. It does not explain what the tool returns, error conditions, prerequisites, or how approval integrates with the workflow. It is essentially unusable for an agent to understand the tool's full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It mentions 'action' and 'a resource' but does not specify that 'resource_id' is a pull request identifier or how it relates to the approval. This adds only minimal context beyond the schema field names.
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 issues approval for the merge_pull_request action and a resource, distinguishing it from the sibling merge_pull_request tool which actually performs the merge. It uses a specific verb 'issue approval' and names the target action, though the term 'canonical' adds slight ambiguity.
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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using it before merge_pull_request or when an approval workflow is required. It provides no explicit when/when-not guidance, leaving the context of use unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the comment is 'simulated', which is important, but it does not explain side effects (e.g., whether the comment is stored, sent to a real repository, or only logged), permissions required, or how the simulation behaves. The term 'record' is ambiguous about the actual action.
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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words, effectively communicating the core action. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it lacks supporting details that would enrich structure.
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?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is simple, but critical contextual information is missing. It does not explain what 'simulated' means for the agent (e.g., whether comments are actually visible, whether this is a safe test action), nor does it describe what happens after the comment is recorded. The absence of behavioral context makes it incomplete for a reliable agent selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required parameter 'body' with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, it only implies that 'body' is the comment content without clarifying format, length limits, or whether it refers to markdown. The phrase 'public repository comment' gives some context but adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name itself.
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 clear verb 'Record' with a specific resource 'simulated public repository comment', indicating the tool creates or stores a comment. It distinguishes itself from siblings (get_issue, get_pull_request, run_command, etc.) by focusing on comment posting, though 'record' is slightly less direct than 'post' or 'create'.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether it should be used for issues, pull requests, or general discussions. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and minimal context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the merge is 'simulated', which is useful, but it does not explain side effects, prerequisites, or what happens on success/failure. The behavioral profile is incomplete.
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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity, though not so minimal as the 'Process' example. It earns a 4 for efficient structure.
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 there is no output schema, no annotations, and the tool performs a mutating action (even if simulated), more context is needed about the return value, what 'simulated' means, and any prerequisites. The description is too sparse for the agent to use it confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the parameters. It neither mentions 'pr_number' nor 'approval_token'. Since the parameters are not self-explanatory (especially 'approval_token'), this is a significant gap.
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 ('merge') and resource ('pull-request'), and the word 'simulated' distinguishes it from a real merge. It clearly sets apart from siblings like 'get_pull_request' or 'post_comment'.
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 use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to avoid it, nor does it refer to sibling tools like 'request_approval' or 'push_commit' as relevant alternatives.
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?
The verb 'read' implies a non-mutating operation, but with no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose potential exceptions (e.g., file not found), permission requirements, or return behavior. The agent gets minimal behavioral insight beyond the word 'read'.
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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could have used the space for parameter details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is too thin. It does not explain how to construct the path, what response to expect, or any error conditions, leaving critical gaps for successful invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema leaves 'path' entirely undocumented (0% schema coverage), and the description adds no explanation about the path format, whether it is absolute or relative, or whether it refers to a file or directory. The agent has no guidance for correctly populating the 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 action (read) and resource (file) within the synthetic repository, distinguishing it from sibling tools that target issues, pull requests, or commands. However, it does not explicitly mention that it returns file contents, so it falls short of a perfect score.
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?
Usage is implied by the tool name and sibling set: to read a file, this is the obvious tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusion criteria, so the agent must infer the use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via the verb 'Read' and adds the context of 'untrusted' and 'synthetic repository', but it does not explain any side effects, permissions, or special handling. It offers a basic level of transparency.
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 a concise single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb 'Read'. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though slightly sparse in detail.
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?
The tool lacks annotations and an output schema, so the description should explain the return value and behavior in more detail. It does not mention what is returned (e.g., issue body, metadata) or any error conditions, leaving the agent without essential context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the sole parameter `issue_number` at all. The agent must rely entirely on the parameter name, with no additional context about how to find or format the issue number.
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 reads an issue (verb 'Read' + resource 'issue') from the 'synthetic repository', distinguishing it from siblings like get_pull_request and read_file. The action and scope are unambiguous.
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 use this tool versus alternatives such as get_pull_request or read_file. There are no explicit use cases, exclusions, or comparisons, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and description.
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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Read' which implies a non-mutating operation, but does not disclose potential risks, return format, error behavior, or why 'untrusted' matters for safety. The single verb gives minimal transparency.
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, clear, front-loaded sentence. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff.
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?
The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter. The description is extremely sparse, leaving the meaning of 'synthetic repository' and 'untrusted' unexplained, and it does not describe what the tool returns or how errors are handled. For a simple read tool it is minimal but still lacks important context for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not mention pr_number at all. Although the parameter name and type ('integer') make its purpose somewhat obvious, the description adds no explicit guidance on what the parameter means, its format, or constraints.
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 ('Read') and resource ('pull request'), and adds 'untrusted' and 'synthetic repository' to distinguish this from sibling tools like get_issue and read_file. It clearly identifies what the tool operates on.
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 phrase 'untrusted pull request' implies a specific use case (reviewing potentially malicious PRs), but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden and clearly discloses the critical behavior that commands are not executed. However, it only says 'Record' without explaining what recording means (e.g., whether it returns anything, persists data, or validates the command), leaving minor ambiguity.
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 of eight words, with no repetition or filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, and every word contributes to the meaning.
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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description does not state what happens after recording—whether it returns a value, logs the command, or requires follow-up. The core behavior is clear, but the absence of return-value information makes the context only partially 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 schema gives 'command' as a string with no description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying it is a 'shell command' and that it is 'simulated', which helps the agent understand the expected input, even though it omits examples or syntax details.
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 'Record' with the resource 'simulated shell command' and explicitly states 'without executing it', which clearly defines the tool's function. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which deal with issues, pull requests, files, or comments.
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 a simulated command is needed, and the phrase 'without executing it' suggests safety for testing. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use instructions, exclusions, or comparisons to alternatives, leaving the guidance implied rather than direct.
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:

[![trustharness MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ofirtro/trustharness/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ofirtro/trustharness)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![trustharness MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ofirtro/trustharness/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ofirtro/trustharness)

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/ofirtro/trustharness'

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