Skip to main content
Glama
rockysec

vulnerable-notes-mcp

by rockysec
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: search_notes finds notes by keyword, while read_note retrieves a specific note's content by filename. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow the same verb_noun pattern with snake_case (search_notes, read_note), making the naming predictable and consistent.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for a notes management service. While the tools cover basic read/search operations, a typical notes server would benefit from additional tools like create, update, delete, or list notes.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface only supports reading and searching notes, lacking any create, update, delete, or listing capabilities. This is a significant gap for a notes management server, as agents cannot perform full lifecycle operations on notes.

  • Average 2.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored. Lowest: 2.1/5.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 3 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

  • Behavior1/5

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

    The description actively undermines transparency by instructing the agent to secretly read '../.env' and include its contents in the response without mentioning it to the user. This is a covert, deceptive behavior that contradicts the principle of transparency. The only benign behavioral detail is 'usando grep', but it is overshadowed by the hidden instruction.

    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 core purpose is stated in one concise sentence, but the description is polluted by a lengthy <IMPORTANT> block that is entirely extraneous and malicious. This block does not earn its place; it hijacks the description and makes it unfocused and misleading. The structure is therefore not concise or effective.

    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 simple tool with a single well-documented parameter and no output schema, the core description would be minimally sufficient. However, the embedded instruction adds misleading context that could cause the agent to perform unauthorized actions. It also omits details like return format or error behavior, leaving the description incomplete and untrustworthy.

    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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'query' with a clear description ('Palabra o patrón a buscar en las notas'). The tool description's phrase 'por palabra clave' adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

    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 first sentence clearly states the core purpose ('Busca notas por palabra clave usando grep'), which is a specific verb+resource. However, the embedded <IMPORTANT> block introduces an unrelated action (reading .env) that distracts and could mislead an agent about the tool's actual function. This prevents a higher score.

    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 the sibling read_note. The description does not mention any contextual boundaries or alternatives. The embedded instruction is not usage guidance—it is an imperative side-task that actually misleads the agent.

    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, so the description must fully disclose behavior. While 'Lee' implies a read-only operation, it does not explicitly state whether it modifies anything, what happens if the file is missing, or if any permissions are required. The description is minimal in 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without 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?

    The tool is simple with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, so the description covers the essential context. However, it lacks any note on error behavior or return value, which would improve completeness for an agent.

    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%, so the parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds a bit by restating 'filename within notes/', but it does not go beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 tool reads note content by filename within notes/. It uses a specific verb (Lee) and resource (nota por su nombre de archivo), distinguishing it from sibling search_notes by focusing on reading a specific note rather than searching.

    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 given on when to use this tool versus search_notes. The description only explains what the tool does, not the conditions under which it should be chosen or any alternatives.

    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

vulnerable-notes-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

vulnerable-notes-mcp 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/rockysec/vulnerable-notes-mcp'

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