ai-runtime-guard

by runtimeguard

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Score Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v2.3.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation: file read/write/edit/delete, command execution, directory listing, backup restore, and server info. No two tools have overlapping purposes.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., delete_file, execute_command, server_info). No mixing of conventions.
Tool Count5/5
8 tools is well-scoped for a runtime guard. Each tool earns its place by covering essential file, command, backup, and info operations without bloat.
Completeness4/5
Covers core CRUD-like operations for files, plus command execution and backup. Minor gaps like missing move/copy or directory creation tools, but agents can work around with existing tools.
Average 3.1/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on May 6, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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.
View related servers

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?
No annotations are provided. The description only mentions backups but does not disclose replacement behavior, permissions, or 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence) but under-specified given the tool's complexity with 6 parameters.
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 is incomplete, lacking parameter explanations and contextual details despite having an output schema.
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 adds no meaning to any of the 6 parameters, including the required path.
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 does 'targeted text replacements in an existing file' and mentions backups, distinguishing it from write_file and delete_file.
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 or when not to use this tool compared to siblings like write_file or delete_file.
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 description must cover behavior. It states 'honoring path and depth policy' but does not explain what that policy is, nor whether the operation is read-only, paginated, or recursive.
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?
Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with purpose. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.
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 no annotations, two parameters, and an output schema, the description should clarify behavior, parameter roles, and output meaning. It fails to explain the depth policy and the optional ctx parameter.
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 coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It mentions 'path' indirectly but does not describe 'ctx' or how depth policy affects listing. Minimal addition beyond schema structure.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'list' and resource 'directory entries with metadata'. It clearly states the action and what is returned, distinguishing it from file manipulation siblings like delete_file and write_file.
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 alternatives (e.g., read_file for file content). The mention of 'depth policy' implies constraints but is not explained.
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 convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'policy checks, logging, and backup support' but does not detail authorization requirements, file overwrite behavior, backup creation details, or size limits.
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 extraneous information. Every word earns its place, conveying the core action and key features efficiently.
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 three parameters (two required) and existing sibling tools like 'edit_file', the description lacks crucial details: how overwriting works, error conditions, backup behavior, and differentiation from similar tools. Although an output schema exists, the description does not supplement it.
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%, and the description adds minimal parameter semantics. 'content' is implied as the full text to write, but 'path' and 'ctx' are not described. No parameter definitions are provided in the description.
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 'Write full file content', identifying the verb and resource. It adds 'with policy checks, logging, and backup support', which hints at additional capabilities. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'edit_file', which might handle partial updates.
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 versus alternatives like 'edit_file' or 'delete_file'. The description implies full content overwriting but lacks explicit context or exclusions.
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 must carry the full burden. It indicates the tool returns identity details but does not disclose whether it requires permissions, error behavior (e.g., if server is unavailable), or performance characteristics. Adequate but could be more explicit about safety.
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 two sentences: one stating the overall purpose and one listing the included items. Every word serves a purpose with no fluff.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere, but the description does not mention edge cases, error conditions, or the purpose of the undocumented parameter. For a simple informational tool, it is mostly adequate but incomplete regarding the parameter.
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 input schema has one parameter 'ctx' which is optional and nullable, but the description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add any meaning to this parameter, leaving an agent without guidance on what 'ctx' represents.
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 runtime identity details for the AIRG server, listing specific items like build id, active workspace root, and resolved base directory. This is a specific verb+resource combination that is distinct from sibling tools like file operations or restore_backup.
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. As a diagnostic tool, it could be used for configuration validation, but the description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
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 effectively discloses key behavioral traits: safety checks like AIRG policy, network containment, command-tier policy, Script Sentinel continuity checks, and confirmation gates. However, it does not mention the mutability (destructive potential) or the output format (though output schema exists).
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 two sentences long, with the purpose stated first. Every sentence adds value (purpose + safety context), and there is no redundant or filler content.
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 has 3 parameters, no parameter descriptions in schema or description, and an output schema that is not mentioned, the description fails to provide a complete picture. It covers safety checks but omits critical param semantics and output expectations.
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 adds no information about any of the three parameters (command, retry_count, ctx). An agent cannot understand what 'retry_count' or 'ctx' mean or how to use them, which is a severe 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 clearly states 'Execute a shell command', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (file operations and server_info) by being the only command execution tool.
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 mentions 'after full AIRG policy and approval checks' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when not to use it or what prerequisites are needed). No sibling tools compete directly, but the description could clarify scenarios where command execution is inappropriate.
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. It mentions 'policy checks and optional pre-delete backup,' which adds behavioral context beyond a bare 'delete file.' However, it doesn't disclose failure modes, reversibility, or authentication needs.
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?
Single sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with action and context. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple delete tool with output schema, description covers policy and backup but leaves parameter details unclear. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It does not explain what 'path' should be (e.g., absolute vs relative) or what 'ctx' is. It adds minimal value beyond parameter names.
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 (delete), the resource (a single file), and adds specific context (policy checks and optional pre-delete backup). This distinguishes it from siblings like edit_file, read_file, etc.
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 vs alternatives like restore_backup or edit_file. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use.
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 carries full burden. It mentions 'path-policy enforcement' but omits behaviors such as error handling, size limits, or encoding. For a simple read tool, more detail would be beneficial.
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 9 words, front-loading the core information. Every word is purposeful with no waste.
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 description is adequate for a simple read tool with an output schema, but it lacks details on file type, encoding, or error scenarios. It does not fully contextualize when to use this vs list_directory.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'path' (the file to read) but completely ignores 'ctx'. The parameter semantics are insufficient.
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 ('Read') and the resource ('text file from the workspace') with an additional qualifier ('after path-policy enforcement'). This distinguishes it from siblings like write_file, delete_file, and edit_file.
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 does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It implies use for reading file content but does not contrast with list_directory or other tools.
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 carries full burden. It discloses support for dry-run planning and token-gated apply mode, but does not mention other behaviors such as file overwrite policy, permission requirements, or error handling. This is insufficient for a restore operation.
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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and adding key behavioral notes. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
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 has 4 parameters and an output schema. The description covers dry-run and token modes, which are critical, but lacks details on backup_location format, context object usage, and outcome (e.g., overwrite behavior). For a restore tool, more context is needed to avoid user error.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'dry_run' (planning mode) and 'restore_token' (gated apply), but 'backup_location' is only vaguely described as 'recorded AIRG backup manifest' and 'ctx' is not mentioned. Coverage is partial.
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 'Restore files from a recorded AIRG backup manifest,' specifying a precise verb and resource. Sibling tools are file operations unrelated to backup, so this tool is well-distinguished.
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 mentions dry-run and token-gated modes, implying when to use them, but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, prerequisites (e.g., existence of manifest), or alternatives. Since no sibling backup tools exist, the lack of alternatives is acceptable, but the guidance is still minimal.
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

ai-runtime-guard MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

[![ai-runtime-guard MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/runtimeguard/runtime-guard/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/runtimeguard/runtime-guard)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ai-runtime-guard MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/runtimeguard/runtime-guard/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/runtimeguard/runtime-guard)