Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to MCP Tool Auditor

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Scores MCP tool definitions and tool lists from 0-100, flagging vague descriptions, missing parameter docs, non-verb-first naming, oversized enums, and nested schemas with severity, rationale, and concrete fixes. It also validates marketplace listings against platform character caps such as MCPize's 500-character short-description limit before deploy.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Static security linter for MCP servers. Scans tool definitions for vulnerabilities (path traversal, SQL injection, SSRF), scores description quality, and auto-rewrites descriptions for safer agent tool selection.
      2
      188 PyPI
      10
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Performs explainable, deterministic static analysis of MCP tool metadata to detect misleading instructions, concealed capabilities, and schema drift without executing tools.
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables an agent or MCP client to scan MCP server configs and AI-agent tool manifests on demand, exposing tools that list detection rules and report hidden prompt injections, data-exfiltration attempts, embedded secrets, deceptive Unicode, unpinned packages and shell-launching tools. Each finding comes with a severity and location so risky tool descriptions can be caught before an attacker exploits them.
      186 PyPI
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables auditing MCP servers' tools by their estimated context token cost, ranking verbose names, descriptions, and schemas before they consume the agent window. Can run as an MCP tool so agents can budget their own context.
      1
      MIT

    TDQS

    A4.2/5.0

    Scored across 4 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Audit_tool and audit_tool_list overlap in purpose (auditing descriptions) but are clearly separated by scope (single vs. list). Rewrite and best practices are distinct. The descriptions make the boundaries clear, so confusion is unlikely.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (audit_tool, rewrite_tool_description, audit_tool_list, get_best_practices). No mixed casing or stylistic deviations.

    Tool Count5/5

    Four tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose. Each tool addresses a distinct step in the auditing workflow: reference, single audit, batch audit, and rewrite.

    Completeness4/5

    The core workflow is covered: get best practices, audit individual or list, and rewrite weak descriptions. A minor gap is lack of a validation/apply tool after rewriting, but the existing set supports the main use case effectively.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues