orgintel

by shaumikp26

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation: snapshots, listing, describing, querying, profiling, diffing, sensitive access search, and decomposition verification/proposal. No overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., snapshot_org, list_snapshots, permission_diff), making the purpose clear from the name.
Tool Count5/5
9 tools is well-scoped for the domain of Salesforce org permission analysis and decomposition. Each tool serves a clear role without redundancy.
Completeness5/5
The toolset covers the entire workflow: fetching permission architecture, describing objects, querying, listing profiles, diffing permissions, finding sensitive access, and proposing/verifying decompositions. No obvious gaps.
Average 3.9/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored.
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
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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description discloses sorting (by user count desc) and that unassigned profiles are included. However, no annotations exist, and the description does not mention side effects, permissions, or error conditions. Adequate but incomplete.
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?
Three short sentences, each adding value (output fields, ordering, edge case). No redundant or missing words; front-loaded with key information.
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 2 parameters, output schema exists, and no nested objects, description covers input, output, ordering, and an edge case (unassigned profiles). Minor gap: error handling or required snapshot validity not addressed.
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 coverage is 0%, but description adds context: output includes 'user count' which relates to include_user_counts param. Snapshot_id is implied but not explained. Partial compensation for missing schema descriptions.
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?
Description clearly states verb ('list') and resource ('Profiles in a snapshot') with specific output fields (name, license, user count, perm cardinality, ModifyAllData). Distinguishes from siblings like snapshot_org or permission_diff by focusing on profile listing.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., describe_object, permission_diff). Context implies use for profile overview but lacks when-not or sibling comparisons.
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 it returns only summary statistics and never permission rows, and explains the scope default. However, it lacks details on other behaviors such as whether the snapshot store is overwritten or appended, authentication requirements, or rate limits, which are not covered by annotations.
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 very concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second clarifies the scope behavior. No unnecessary words, and key information 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 tool's complexity (bulk-fetch with potential impact), the description is adequate but could be more complete. It does not mention return value details (output schema exists but is not described) or behavior regarding existing snapshots, but it covers the main purpose.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context for the scope parameter (defaults and format) beyond the schema. The org_alias parameter is not further explained, so not all parameters are fully clarified, but the main parameter benefits.
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 the tool bulk-fetches permission architecture into a snapshot store, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it returns only summary statistics, not permission rows, but does not explicitly name sibling tools.
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 provides guidance on the scope parameter default and how to include Apex, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools like permission_diff or list_snapshots. Usage context is implied but not fully delineated.
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, the description carries full burden and discloses that fields are ordered with sensitive ones first and include a sensitivity_guess flag. However, it could mention that it is a read-only operation and any rate limits.
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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the key action ('live describe') and including important detail about sensitive fields ordering. It could be slightly more structured, but remains efficient.
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?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description adequately explains the return value (fields with sensitivity flags). However, with 2 undocumented parameters and no schema coverage, the description is incomplete regarding input semantics.
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 description does not explain the parameters api_name and org_alias beyond their types and titles. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should add meaning, such as the format or source of api_name and the role of org_alias.
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 provides a 'live describe' of object fields with a sensitivity flag per field, and distinguishes it from siblings like soql_query by focusing on metadata rather than data.
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 the tool is for viewing field metadata with sensitivity clues, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives like find_sensitive_access, and does not mention prerequisites or constraints.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the proposal is run through verify_decomposition before returning and that names/rationale are deliberately omitted. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema.
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 paragraph of 4 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. It is concise and avoids redundancy, though a structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability.
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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It mentions placeholder keys and raw materials but lacks parameter semantics. The description is adequate for a proposal tool but has gaps.
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%, meaning the description does not explain any of the 3 parameters (snapshot_id, threshold, target_base_count). The description focuses on the overall function but leaves the meaning and usage of parameters entirely to the schema, which is inadequate.
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 it proposes a 'thin-base-profile + permission-set decomposition', specifying the verb 'Propose' and the resource. It distinguishes from siblings like verify_decomposition and list_profiles by describing its deterministic computation and integration with verification.
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 usage for generating a decomposition proposal, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like verify_decomposition or list_profiles. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.
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, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses read-only nature, SELECT-only parser guarding, hard row cap, and identifier column redaction—key behavioral traits beyond the input schema.
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 sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with the core purpose ('Read-only SOQL'), and each subsequent clause adds unique behavioral detail. Highly efficient.
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 the output schema exists and parameters are moderate, the description covers the essential restrictions and privacy behavior. It lacks explicit mention of the org_alias parameter's role, but overall is sufficient.
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 does not explain individual parameters (query, max_rows, org_alias). It only indirectly hints at max_rows via 'hard row cap', providing minimal added meaning.
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 'Read-only SOQL' and 'SELECT-only', specifying the verb (query) and resource (SOQL). It distinguishes from sibling tools like describe_object by emphasizing data querying with constraints.
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 use for reading data via SOQL but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools, nor does it mention alternatives.
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, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: effective permissions honoring muting, recall over precision, and broad matches. It implies a read-only query without stating explicitly, but the traits are well-described.
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?
Two concise sentences cover the core purpose and a key behavioral trait. No extraneous text, though the parameter omission could be addressed with a brief addition.
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 the complexity of sensitive access detection and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately explains the input, matching logic, and output scope. Missing only parameter details, but overall complete.
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 does not mention the single required parameter 'snapshot_id', failing to explain its role or how to obtain it. This is a significant gap since the parameter is essential.
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 finds every principal granting read/edit on fields matching sensitivity patterns (SSN/DOB/account-number/card/comp), distinguishing it from siblings like permission_diff which handle general permission differences.
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 provides clear context for use: to detect sensitive access with recall prioritized over precision. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for most agents.
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?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that PSGs return an instructive error and that results are grouped by signature. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, performance characteristics, or error handling for invalid inputs.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then providing detail and exclusion. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary text.
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 three parameters and existence of an output schema, the description explains the return format (grouped by signature) and the PSG error behavior. However, it does not cover all potential errors or the structure of the output in detail, making it moderately complete.
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 coverage, the description should compensate. It only hints that principals can be profile or permission set and does not explain the format of principal_a, principal_b, or snapshot_id. The description adds minimal parameter insight beyond the schema.
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 that the tool computes the symmetric difference of permissions between two principals (profile or permission set) and groups them by signature. It specifies it is the P1 workhorse, distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_sensitive_access.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly excludes PSGs, stating they require P2's effective_permissions tool, providing clear when-not-to-use guidance and an alternative. It labels the tool as the P1 workhorse, implying it is the default for permission diffing in P1.
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 discloses that the tool returns per-user added/removed grants and any uncovered users, with both grants needing to be empty to pass. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden and does so well, though it could mention whether it modifies state (it doesn't).
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 consists of two clear, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value: the first explains purpose and output, the second emphasizes the boolean nature.
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 mentions return values (added/removed grants, uncovered users) but omits details on the complex 'proposal' parameter structure and required 'snapshot_id'. Given the output schema exists, return details are less critical, but parameter guidance is lacking.
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 description does not explain the two parameters ('snapshot_id' and 'proposal') beyond what the schema shows. Given 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to provide any parameter meaning or constraints.
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's purpose: verifying that a proposed base-profile + permission-set/group decomposition leaves every user's effective permission set unchanged. It specifies the exact verb ('verify') and resource ('decomposition'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'propose_decomposition' and 'permission_diff'.
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 implies when to use: for a formal, exact check of privilege preservation. It contrasts with a 'vibe', indicating rigorous use. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use or name alternative tools for proposing or diffing permissions.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior fully. It correctly implies a read-only list operation and details ordering and returned fields. No side effects are mentioned, but none are expected.
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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key details without any unnecessary words.
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?
For a simple listing tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It specifies ordering and returned fields, which covers the essential information needed by an agent.
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 add parameter information. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
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 lists snapshots with ordering (newest first) and specifies included fields (org, timestamp, row counts). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like snapshot_org.
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?
While there is no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, the description provides clear context for a straightforward listing operation. The lack of parameters simplifies usage, making the purpose obvious.
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:

[![MCPSalesforce MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/shaumikp26/MCPSalesforce/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/shaumikp26/MCPSalesforce)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![MCPSalesforce MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/shaumikp26/MCPSalesforce/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/shaumikp26/MCPSalesforce)

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/shaumikp26/MCPSalesforce'

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