ssomcp

by riniort

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are mostly distinct by action (query, upload, verify, submit, get, change, prepare, refresh), but upload_contribution, verify_summary, submit_contribution, and refresh_employers are all described as unavailable/blocked, which could blur their intended roles until implemented.
Naming Consistency4/5
Names mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (query_history, upload_contribution, get_active_employer, change_active_employer, prepare_contribution, refresh_employers). Minor inconsistency: verify_summary uses 'summary' rather than 'contribution', though it likely refers to the same workflow.
Tool Count4/5
Eight tools is a reasonable count for a contribution-preparation workflow, though several are explicitly unavailable, making the effective toolset smaller and slightly padded.
Completeness3/5
The set covers local employer selection, contribution preparation, and submission intent, but lacks authenticated portal actions (real submission, verification, employer refresh) which are marked as unavailable; this makes the workflow incomplete for end-to-end use.
Average 2.9/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 1.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 7 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?
The description gives no information about side effects, required permissions, persistence, or failure modes. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the placeholder text reveals no actual behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but not because it is concise—it is empty of substance. It does not serve as a functional tool description and lacks any structural value.
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?
The tool is effectively unusable as documented. There is no output schema, no examples, no error semantics, and no indication of what 'upload and save' entails. The placeholder status makes it incomplete for any real agent invocation.
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 has zero description coverage; only field names suggest meaning (employer, period with month/year, txtPath). The nested period structure is present but unexplained, leaving ambiguity about formats and constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a placeholder stating unavailability, not an explanation of what the tool does. It fails to name any action, resource, or result, leaving the purpose entirely unknown.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools include similar actions like submit_contribution and prepare_contribution, but no distinction is made.
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?
The description discloses that the tool is unavailable until an adapter is implemented, which is a behavioral trait beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not describe any other behavior or side effects, so it is only partially transparent.
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 a single sentence and is concise, but it lacks the substance needed for a functional tool description. It is short but not appropriately informative.
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's complexity (nested objects, required parameters) and lack of output schema, the description provides almost no context. It does not help an agent understand the tool's role or constraints.
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 description does not explain any of the parameters (employer, period) and the schema has 0% coverage in the description. The agent is left without any semantic understanding of the inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool is unavailable and provides no indication of what the tool does when implemented. The title hints at verifying a summary, but the description itself lacks a clear purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when or how to use this tool. The only information is that it is unavailable, which does not help an agent decide to invoke it.
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?
The description honestly discloses that the tool is not yet implemented, which is a key limitation. However, it does not describe what the tool would do if available or what happens upon invocation, leaving behavior largely opaque.
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 sentence with no wasted words. It directly communicates the unavailability status without unnecessary 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 description lacks any context about the tool's intended function, such as what 'refreshing employers' entails or how it fits into the overall workflow. While the unavailability is stated, the missing purpose leaves the tool's role unclear.
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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is nothing to describe. The baseline score applies because the description adds no parameter-related information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description only states that the tool is unavailable; it does not convey what the tool does or its intended purpose. An agent cannot determine what 'refresh employers' means or when it would be relevant.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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, other than the implicit instruction that it cannot be used yet. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions for future use.
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?
The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds context about explicit confirmation and a live portal adapter. However, it does not explicitly disclose that the action is final, irreversible, or that it will submit data to an external system.
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 and is not bloated. It loses some value by being cryptic, but it is appropriately short and to the point.
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 output schema and only three required parameters, the description should explain what happens on success or failure, what the return value is, and how prerequisites like the live portal adapter are checked. It provides almost none of this 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 provides no explanation of employer, period, or explicitConfirmation. Although parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's basic type and constraint information.
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 description says 'Final submission requires explicit per-run confirmation and a verified live portal adapter,' which only states prerequisites rather than clearly describing the action as 'submit a contribution to the portal.' The tool's purpose must be inferred from the title and context.
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 clear guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as prepare_contribution or upload_contribution. It mentions a requirement for a verified live portal adapter but does not explain how to satisfy it or when this tool is 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?
Beyond the readOnly annotation, the description reveals that the data is local, totals-only, and not proof of current e-Service state, giving useful behavioral 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 short sentences with no filler; each sentence adds meaning, and the caveat is included without clutter.
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 simple read-only nature, the description is adequate, but it lacks any detail about the returned history structure or how the parameters affect the result.
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 provides no parameter descriptions, and the description does not explain 'period' or 'employer'. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but format, defaults, and semantics are left unspecified.
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?
States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('local totals-only audit history'), and adds a clear caveat that it is not proof of current e-Service state, which distinguishes its purpose.
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?
Implies usage for reviewing local audit totals and warns against treating it as current state, but does not explicitly mention when to prefer or avoid it relative to sibling tools.
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 indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotency. The description adds context about atomic file writing, loading cached data, and network isolation, which goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand side effects.
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 sentence that packs the core action, inputs, outputs, and a key constraint (no network). No wasted words, and the most critical behavioral detail is front-loaded.
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 (nested objects, 5 params) and lack of output schema, the description covers the main flow but omits details like error conditions, post-conditions, or how the produced files are consumed. It is adequate for a basic understanding but not exhaustive.
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 60%, with descriptions for payDate, employer, and previousEmployees. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, and the remaining 40% (period, employees) rely solely on schema structure. This is adequate but not enhanced by the description.
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?
States a specific verb (prepare) and resource (contribution files), and outlines the process: load cached employer and prior baseline, calculate contributions, write XLSX and TXT files. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like upload_contribution or submit_contribution by focusing on the preparation step.
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?
Implies it's the offline preparation step before upload/submit, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. The 'No network access' note hints at its role, but no direct guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools.
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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates no side effects, and the description adds that it never authenticates and returns cached data. This gives useful behavioral context beyond the annotation.
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 brief and to the point, using two short sentences with no unnecessary detail.
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 there is no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns. It could specify the output format more explicitly, but the core information is present.
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 no parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The schema coverage is complete for an empty parameter set.
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 returns the active cached employer and available cached employers, with a specific verb and resource. It is easily distinguished from siblings like change_active_employer and refresh_employers.
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 read-only usage by stating 'Never authenticates' and by the readOnlyHint, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as change_active_employer or refresh_employers.
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?
The description adds a behavioral detail not present in the annotations: it never authenticates. This helps set expectations about side effects. However, it does not explicitly mention that it changes the active employer state, though this is implied by the tool name. The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are not contradicted.
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 with no redundant information. The description is clear and to the point, effectively conveying the tool's purpose and a key behavioral note.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple selection operation. It does not specify output/return values, but this is not typically critical for a mutating action. The lack of an output schema is acceptable, and the description covers the primary purpose and parameter format. Minor gap: does not mention any error cases or side effects beyond authentication.
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?
Even though the schema provides no description for the 'employer' parameter, the tool description explicitly explains that it can be specified by nickname or accountNo:branch. This fully covers the parameter's meaning and format, exceeding the schema's minimal definition (type string, minLength 1).
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: selecting a locally cached employer by nickname or accountNo:branch. The verb 'Select' combined with the tool name 'change_active_employer' unambiguously indicates setting the active employer, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_active_employer or refresh_employers.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the 'Never authenticates' note provides a useful constraint that signals this is a lightweight local operation. The purpose is clear enough from the name and description for an agent to infer appropriate usage.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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