Skip to main content
Glama
owen-25-AI

TripWire MCP Server

by owen-25-AI
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation4/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: safe_exec routes commands into a sandbox, while rollback restores snapshots. There is no ambiguity between executing a command and restoring an earlier state.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    Both names use a single-word verb (safe_exec, rollback) without a noun component, showing some inconsistency with the typical verb_noun pattern. They're readable and somewhat consistent in being commands, but 'safe_exec' mixes an adjective+verb while 'rollback' is a single verb.

    Tool Count3/5

    Two tools is on the thin side even for a focused sandbox MCP server. The domain (sandbox command execution and snapshot management) could reasonably warrant a few more operations like listing snapshots or checking sandbox state.

    Completeness2/5

    There is no way to inspect snapshot state before executing or understand what command is being routed, and no visibility into sandbox status. The surface covers execution and rollback but leaves out key supporting operations that agents would need to make informed decisions.

  • Average 2.3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored. Lowest: 1.7/5.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 2 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

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • 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

  • Behavior1/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description says 'Classify and safely route a command inside TripWire's sandbox' but never explains what 'safely route' means—what happens to the command, what the sandbox does, whether it executes or just evaluates/classifies the command, what happens on unsafe commands, or what the output indicates. This is a security-sensitive tool and the description is almost entirely uninformative about behavior.

    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 short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently specified. The word 'process' fills the sentence with no additional behavioral content. It earns credit for brevity but the content is thin.

    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?

    This is a security-critical tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage for its parameters. The description fails to explain return values, what 'safe' classification means, failure modes, or how it relates to the sibling rollback tool. It is grossly incomplete for a sandbox-routing tool.

    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%, so the description must clarify parameter meaning, but it mentions none of the three parameters (command, cwd, intent). The 'intent' parameter is particularly opaque—its purpose in classification is never explained. Even 'cwd' with its default is left unexplained.

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

    Purpose2/5

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

    The verb 'Classify and safely route' names an action on a resource (a command in TripWire's sandbox), which gives partial clarity. However, it is ambiguous whether the tool actually executes the command or merely classifies it for later execution, and there is no differentiation from the sibling rollback tool or any other command tool. The core action is unclear.

    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 safe_exec versus rollback or other alternatives. It does not specify when execution is appropriate, what commands are suitable, or how the classification decision is made. Usage context is entirely absent.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior3/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Restore a snapshot' signals a state-changing operation, and 'demo sandbox' scopes its blast radius, which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose whether the restore is reversible, destructive to current sandbox state, or requires specific permissions. A state-changing tool with no annotation coverage could do more, though the 'demo sandbox' caveat adds meaningful 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?

    A single, focused sentence that names the action, the resource type, and the deployment context. Zero filler, no redundancy, every word earns its place. This is appropriately concise for a tool with one parameter.

    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?

    This is a state-changing, destructive-ish operation (restoring a snapshot) with no annotations, no output schema, and no param detail. For a mutation tool with a sibling (safe_exec), the description is thin. It doesn't explain what happens to current sandbox state, whether assets are wiped, or what the expected outcome is on success. Given its complexity as a restore operation, more detail is warranted.

    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?

    With only one parameter (snapshot_id) at 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't mention the parameter at all. However, the schema title 'Snapshot Id' is reasonably self-explanatory given the tool is about restoring snapshots. The description adds little beyond the schema, but the single-parameter schema is simple enough that a baseline of 3 seems fair — though there's no info on format (UUID? name? custom format?) for snapshot_id.

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

    Purpose3/5

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

    The description states 'Restore a TripWire snapshot in the configured demo sandbox' — a verb+resource with a scoping qualifier ('demo sandbox'). It's clear enough about the primary action but doesn't elaborate on what 'restore' entails (overwrites current state? creates new resources?). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool safe_exec, though the distinct purpose is evident.

    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 safe_exec. The description implies a demo-sandbox context but offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives. Given the sibling relationship with safe_exec, explicit guidance on when rollback vs safe_exec is appropriate would be valuable but is absent.

    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

tripwire-mcp-server-tool MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

tripwire-mcp-server-tool MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/owen-25-AI/tripwire-mcp-server-tool'

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