SafeNode MCP Gateway
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.2
- Disambiguation5/5
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusing it with others. The purpose of echoing text is completely distinct by default.
Naming Consistency5/5A single tool name 'echo' is trivially consistent, as there are no other names to deviate from. The name clearly reflects the action performed.
Tool Count1/5The server is named 'SafeNode MCP Gateway' but contains only a trivial echo tool, which is an extreme mismatch for the apparent scope. This is the definition of a single trivial tool.
Completeness1/5The tool surface is severely incomplete for a gateway server, offering no functional operations beyond echoing input. There are obvious dead ends for any real workflow.
Average 4.4/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 9 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on
- 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.
This server has been verified by its author.
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
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It fully discloses the behavior: simply returning the input text. There are no side effects, destructive actions, or complexities to disclose. The description is transparent and complete for this trivial operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with five words, perfectly sized for a tool of this simplicity. Every word contributes to meaning, and there is zero redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded and immediately clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a trivial tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the core function but does not explicitly state the return format or edge-case handling (e.g., empty text). Given the simplicity, these omissions are minor and the description is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter 'text' with no description (0% coverage). The description 'Echo back the text' implies that the 'text' parameter is what gets echoed back, adding meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition. It clarifies the parameter's purpose, though it does not explicitly state 'the text parameter will be returned as-is'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Echo back the text' uses a specific verb (echo) and resource (text), clearly indicating the tool's function. There are no sibling tools, so differentiation is unnecessary, but the description is unambiguous and exact.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the tool name and description: this tool is used to echo back text. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, context, or exclusions. Since no alternatives exist, the implied usage is acceptable but not strongly stated.
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:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/sp3ak/safenode-mcp-gateway'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server