Skip to main content
Glama
trustos-trustfolio

Trust OS MCP Server

Official
by trustos-trustfolio
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation4/5

    The two tools have distinct primary purposes—create_decision creates a new decision while verify_decision checks an existing one—but create_decision also includes verification, creating slight overlap. Descriptions are clear enough to guide correct selection in most cases.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow the consistent verb_noun pattern: create_decision and verify_decision. The naming is uniform, predictable, and easy to extend.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for its domain, though the narrow scope may justify it. This is borderline and could benefit from additional tools to round out the functionality.

    Completeness2/5

    The server covers creation and verification but lacks essential operations like retrieving, listing, or updating decisions. This is a significant gap because agents cannot reference or manage existing decisions beyond their initial creation, making the surface incomplete for typical workflows.

  • Average 3.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • No commit activity data available
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'using Trust OS' but does not explain what verification entails, whether it is a read-only operation, whether it requires permissions, or what happens after verification (e.g., returns a result, blocks execution). This lack of transparency is a significant gap for a decision-related tool.

    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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no redundancy or filler. It earns its place by communicating the essential action and context.

    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 tool has 7 parameters, one nested object, and no output schema or annotations. The description is far too minimal to cover the behavioral aspects, verification process, return values, or edge cases. It provides only a high-level purpose and leaves the agent guessing about how to use the tool effectively.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema description coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but it does not need to since the schema already documents each parameter. The description does not clarify relationships between parameters or provide usage examples.

    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: 'Verify a high-impact decision before execution.' The verb 'verify' is specific, and 'high-impact decision' identifies the resource. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'create_decision' by implying this tool is for verification, not creation.

    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 phrase 'before execution' implies when to use the tool, but there is no explicit mention of alternatives, exclusions, or when not to use it. The sibling tool 'create_decision' is not referenced, leaving room for ambiguity about the relation between creating and verifying decisions.

    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 carries the burden. It discloses that the tool both creates and verifies, and returns several artifacts, but does not detail side effects, permissions needed, or what verification entails beyond returning data.

    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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action and outcome, listing key return values. No wasted 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?

    Given the schema fully documents parameters and the description enumerates meaningful return values, the tool is adequately described for an agent to select and invoke it. It lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or failure modes but remains complete enough for straightforward usage.

    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?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds the purpose of the tool (creating a decision) and example output fields, complementing the schema without needing to repeat parameter details.

    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 states a specific verb ('Create and verify') and resource ('decision via the Trust OS Decision API'), and lists concrete outputs. It distinguishes clearly from the sibling 'verify_decision' by emphasizing creation and returning identifiers like decision_id and trace_url.

    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 this tool is for creating a decision, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling 'verify_decision'. It provides context about verifying via the API but lacks clear alternatives or exclusions.

    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

trustos-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

trustos-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/trustos-trustfolio/trustos-mcp-server'

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