mcp-protocol-conformance

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.2.1
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting a specific conformance aspect or utility. There is no overlap between tools like runJsonRpcCompliance, runTransportSuite, and runOauthPkceFlow, as they each test different parts of the protocol.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verbNoun pattern in camelCase, using descriptive verbs like run, generate, compare, and assert. This uniform convention makes the tool surface predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count5/5
With 12 tools, the server covers a comprehensive set of conformance testing areas without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a necessary function, from individual compliance checks to full suite execution and reporting.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers all major MCP protocol conformance areas: JSON-RPC errors, spec version, transport, OAuth, tool schema, capability introspection, roundtrip testing, annotations, and regression comparison. No obvious gaps remain for the stated purpose.
Average 3.2/5 across 12 of 12 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 12 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on April 27, 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.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds that it 'verifies' the transport layer, which is consistent. No additional behavioral details (e.g., side effects, authorization needs) are disclosed.
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 front-loaded, but it omits essential details about parameters and usage. This is under-specification, not genuine conciseness.
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 three parameters (including a complex required object target with conditional properties and enum options) and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain how to specify the target or choose transport/specVersion, leaving the agent without necessary 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 any parameter (target, transport, specVersion). The agent must infer meaning solely from the schema, which is insufficient for proper invocation.
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 verifies the transport layer, specifying the two transports (stdio and HTTP). It is specific and actionable, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like runJsonRpcCompliance or runRoundtripSmoke.
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 information is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., runJsonRpcCompliance for JSON-RPC compliance, runRoundtripSmoke for roundtrip tests). The agent receives no context for selection.
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?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint are true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. However, it adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects, or what 'changed' means). Neutral value.
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?
Extremely concise single sentence that frontloads the core purpose. Every word earns its place. No fluff.
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 fails to specify the output format (diff result), how 'changed' is determined, or any details about the nested object structure. For a diff tool with no output schema, this is insufficient for an agent to understand the return value.
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 does not explain the two parameters ('expected' and 'actual'). It only hints at two tool manifests but gives no detail about expected format, which is critical given both are complex nested objects.
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 diffs two tool manifests and identifies added/removed/changed tools. It uses a specific verb ('diff') and resource ('tool manifests'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on running compliance tests.
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. No mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The description provides no usage direction beyond stating the basic function.
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?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it produces a 'FullReport' with structure, but does not disclose details like error handling, timeout, or dependency on server. It is adequate but not thorough.
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 is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the main action and output.
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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no param descriptions), the description is insufficient. It fails to explain key parameters like target or specVersion, and does not mention the tool's read-only nature or any prerequisites. The description leaves critical gaps for correct usage.
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 0% description coverage, yet the description provides no explanation of any parameters (target, specVersion, oauth, suite). It only loosely references 'suites' but adds no meaning beyond the schema names and enums. This 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 the tool runs 'all (or selected) suites' and produces a 'FullReport', which distinguishes it from sibling tools that run specific suites (e.g., runJsonRpcCompliance, runTransportSuite). The verb 'Run' and resource 'suites' are specific, and the scope is clarified.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings. It implies it is for comprehensive testing via 'all (or selected) suites', but lacks guidance on when to choose specific suite tools or when this is appropriate (e.g., for CI vs debugging).
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe operations. Description adds the list of error cases but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like execution duration, prerequisites (e.g., server must be running), or error handling beyond the listed cases.
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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the main purpose, but it omits critical parameter details. It is efficient but incomplete, which reduces its helpfulness.
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?
Despite having 2 parameters (one complex) and no output schema, the description provides no insight into return values, success/failure indicators, or side effects. It is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior without additional documentation.
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%, yet the description provides no explanation of the complex 'target' parameter (stdio vs http connection) or the 'specVersion' enum. The agent must rely entirely on the JSON schema, which is detailed but lacks natural language guidance.
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 specifies the tool runs a JSON-RPC 2.0 compliance suite targeting an MCP server, listing specific error cases. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., runTransportSuite, runToolSchemaValidation) which cover other aspects of testing.
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?
Usage context is implied by the tool name and description but no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The sibling tools are different test suites, so the purpose is clear but not comparative.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral nuance of default mock-AS mode and real-tenant mode, but does not elaborate on other traits like side effects or authentication needs beyond what annotations provide.
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 concise sentences, with the core purpose in the first sentence and a mode distinction in the second. There is no redundancy or superfluous text.
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?
Despite moderate complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers only the high-level flow and a mode switch. It lacks information on return values, error handling, and parameter roles, making it insufficient for complete understanding.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameter meanings. However, it mentions no parameters at all; terms like 'target', 'clientId', and 'redirectUri' are left undefined. This is a critical gap for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 identifies the tool as exercising an OAuth 2.1 PKCE S256 flow against a target, with distinct modes (mock vs. real). This verb+resource+mode combination is specific and differentiates it from sibling tools like runJsonRpcCompliance or runTransportSuite.
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 only mentions a flag to switch between mock and real tenant, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions relative to siblings.
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 mark it as read-only and idempotent. The description adds behavioral details: fails on transport errors, warns on tool-level errors. This goes beyond what annotations provide, giving the agent a clear picture of failure modes.
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, front-loaded with purpose, no extraneous words. Excellent conciseness.
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 complexity (3 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description omits important context: how sampleArgs affects tool calls, what the return value looks like, and that it requires a running server. Incomplete for effective use.
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%, so description must compensate for parameter explanation. It does not mention any parameters (target, sampleArgs, specVersion), leaving their meaning and usage entirely unexplained.
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 performs one tools/call per advertised tool, making it a smoke test. It distinguishes from sibling testing tools by specifying its lightweight roundtrip nature, though could be more explicit about its narrow scope.
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 like runFullSuite or runToolSchemaValidation. The description does not mention prerequisites, 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety. The description adds format output options (beyond annotations) but does not elaborate on behavior like handling of missing report fields or performance characteristics.
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 one sentence long, direct, and contains no extraneous information. Every word adds value.
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 low complexity (2 params, no output schema) and presence of annotations, the description minimally covers the tool's purpose and output formats, but lacks detail on input parameters and edge cases, making it adequate but not thorough.
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 hints at the 'format' parameter values by listing output types, but it does not describe the 'report' parameter at all (type, structure, or constraints). This is insufficient for a 2-parameter tool.
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 uses a specific verb ('Render'), identifies the resource ('FullReport'), and lists all output formats (JUnit XML, JSON, terminal), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that run tests or perform assertions.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other report tools or the test-running siblings). It only states what it does, leaving usage context implicit.
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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds specifics about applying heuristic rules (destructive name regex, readOnlyHint conflicts), providing behavioral context beyond 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?
Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loads the key action.
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 adequately conveys the core functionality but omits output details (no output schema) and does not explain how results are returned.
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 the parameters. The complex 'target' parameter and optional 'specVersion' are entirely undocumented.
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 applies heuristic annotation rules to advertised tools, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings by focusing specifically on annotation rules.
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, no exclusions, and no context on prerequisites.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive traits. The description adds the behavior of comparing advertised vs actual capabilities, which is consistent but not extensive beyond the 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 a single, direct sentence with no filler, effectively front-loading the core purpose.
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 output schema, no parameter descriptions, and 0% schema coverage, the description omits critical details about parameter usage and return values, leaving the agent underinformed.
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%, yet the description does not explain any parameters (target, specVersion). The agent must infer from the schema alone, which is 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 a specific verb ('Compare') and resources ('capabilities... initialize... tools/list, resources/list, prompts/list'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools that perform other tests or assertions.
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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like runJsonRpcCompliance or runFullSuite. Usage context is implied but not clearly delineated.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool performs a handshake (implying network interaction) and assertion, which provides some behavioral context beyond the 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?
Single sentence, no redundancy or unnecessary detail. Every word contributes to the purpose.
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 no output schema, the description should mention return values or result format. It also lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., target must be a running MCP server). While adequate for a simple test tool, there are gaps.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by stating that expectedVersion is the version to assert and target is the server to test. However, it does not explain the target structure (stdio vs http) 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 the tool drives an initialize handshake and asserts the target advertises the expected MCP spec version. This specific verb+resource structure distinguishes it from sibling test tools like runJsonRpcCompliance or runTransportSuite.
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., runJsonRpcCompliance or runToolSchemaValidation) is provided. The description implies use for spec version testing 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating no side effects. The description ('validate', 'diff') is consistent but adds no new behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction, but no extra 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, no redundant information. Highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Despite the tool's complexity (3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no schema descriptions), the description is minimal. It fails to explain the critical target parameter or how the tool connects to a server, making it incomplete for an AI agent to use effectively.
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%, so the description must explain the three parameters (target, specVersion, expectedManifest). It does not mention any of them, leaving the AI agent without guidance on what 'target' (a complex union), 'specVersion', or 'expectedManifest' mean or how to use them. This is a critical 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?
Description clearly states the tool's purpose: validating that advertised tools have well-formed JSON-Schema inputSchema, with an optional diff against an expected manifest. The verb 'validate' and resource 'tool inputSchemas' are explicit, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like runJsonRpcCompliance or runSpecVersionAssertion.
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 the primary use case is schema validation and mentions the optional diff feature. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative siblings, nor does it state when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks 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?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that it returns a list of breaking changes and warnings, but no additional behavioral context like side effects or request patterns.
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 clear sentence conveying action, inputs, and output without redundancy.
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 no output schema, describing return type helps. However, lacking references to FullReport origin (e.g., from generateReport) and not explaining what constitutes a breaking change leaves some gaps.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description names the two parameters as 'baseline FullReport' and 'current FullReport', providing basic semantic meaning that the schema lacks. However, no details on FullReport structure are given.
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 compares two FullReport objects and returns breaking changes and warnings. It uses specific verbs and nouns, distinguishing it from siblings like compareManifests.
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., compareManifests). No preconditions or exclusions are mentioned.
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:

[![mcp-protocol-conformance MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/studiomeyer-io/mcp-protocol-conformance/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/studiomeyer-io/mcp-protocol-conformance)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-protocol-conformance MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/studiomeyer-io/mcp-protocol-conformance/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/studiomeyer-io/mcp-protocol-conformance)

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/studiomeyer-io/mcp-protocol-conformance'

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