action1-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.1.5
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: organizations, endpoints, endpoint detail, policies, and missing updates. The navigation tool is a clear meta-tool for discovery, so there is no overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow the same pattern: 'action1_' prefix plus a verb (list/get) and noun (organizations, endpoints, endpoint, policies, missing_updates). Snake_case is used consistently throughout, making the set predictable and uniform.
Tool Count5/5
With six tools, the server is well-scoped for a focused endpoint and patch management visibility platform. Each tool serves a clear information retrieval purpose, and six is within the ideal range for a single domain.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers the core lifecycle of reading data: listing organizations, listing/getting endpoints, listing policies, and listing missing updates. It lacks update/delete or apply actions, but the domain appears intended for monitoring and reporting, so the missing operations are minor gaps rather than critical failures.
Average 3.9/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 1 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 29 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 20, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
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.
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, but it only says this is a 'help/discovery aid' without disclosing read-only nature, output format, side effects, or the fact that it doesn't query any actual data. This is insufficient for the agent to understand the tool's runtime behavior.
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 two sentences with no wasted words, and the purpose is front-loaded. It's concise and easy to scan, though it omits some behavioral detail that would increase completeness.
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 is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description doesn't explain what the tool returns or what 'discover' means concretely. Without an output schema, the description should state the expected response (e.g., list of tool names/descriptions) to be considered complete. It leaves a significant gap.
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?
The schema covers 100% of the parameter with descriptions for each enum value, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the phrase 'by domain', which reinforces the parameter's purpose but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb 'Discover' and resource 'available Action1 tools', clearly indicating it's a metadata/help tool rather than a data-returning tool. The phrase 'help/discovery aid' further distinguishes it from sibling list tools, though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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 statement 'All tools are callable at any time — this is a help/discovery aid' gives some context that this tool is for exploration, implying it can be used instead of the specific tools when you need an overview. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over its siblings or provide 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 exist. The description describes a read operation without side effects. It does not disclose potential permissions or rate limits, but the tool's simplicity minimizes risk.
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 concise sentences: first states purpose and return fields, second gives a usage hint. No 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?
The description lists key return fields and mentions the prerequisite. It could mention limit pagination behavior, but the schema already details the limit parameter. Adequate for a simple list tool.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minor value by referencing 'action1_list_organizations' for the organization_id, but does not elaborate beyond the schema.
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 states 'List all endpoints' with a specific verb and resource, and lists return fields. It implies distinction from sibling 'action1_get_endpoint' which likely fetches a single endpoint, but does not explicitly differentiate.
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?
It provides a prerequisite: 'Use the organization id from action1_list_organizations.' However, it lacks guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives for filtering or detailed queries.
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 full burden. It does disclose the response content (hardware, agent version, last contact, group memberships, custom attributes), but it omits error behavior, authentication requirements, or rate limits. This adds some value but not complete behavioral 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?
The description is one concise sentence that leads with the primary action and then lists the included details. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, making it 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?
Despite lacking annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and response fields, which is sufficient for a simple read operation. Missing error handling or alternative guidance are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity, so a 4 is warranted.
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 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents them. The description's mention of 'by id' adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, resulting in the baseline score of 3.
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 gets a single endpoint by id, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. The included detail list (hardware, agent version, etc.) distinguishes it from sibling tools like action1_list_endpoints.
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 retrieving one endpoint's full details, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over action1_list_endpoints or any exclusions. No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use instructions are provided.
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, and the description only says 'list' without disclosing any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects. The description does not add value beyond the implied read-only nature.
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 concise sentences with no extra words. The first sentence defines the action and scope, the second gives practical guidance. Each sentence earns its place.
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 list operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and a key input source. It does not detail output format or whether results are paginated, but completeness is adequate given the tool's simplicity.
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 coverage is 100% and already describes the parameter (organization_id, defaults to env var). The description adds context by stating which sibling tool provides the org id, enhancing understanding.
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 lists Action1 policies, specifying types like automations, deployment rules, and remediation policies. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list organizations or endpoints.
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 explicitly advises using the org id from the sibling tool 'action1_list_organizations', providing clear context on how to obtain a required input. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives.
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 discloses the return fields (update id, severity, affected endpoint count, KB/CVE references) and implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or potential side effects, which are not expected for a list operation. It adds some value but is not rich.
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 compact sentences convey purpose, scope, return fields, and prerequisite. No 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?
The tool is simple with optional parameters; the description covers the main purpose, return fields, and a source for the org id. It does not elaborate on output structure or edge cases, but with no output schema and such a focused task, it is sufficiently complete.
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?
The schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds useful guidance by pointing users to action1_list_organizations for the org id, which goes beyond the schema's default value explanation.
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 'List' and clearly identifies the resource 'missing OS / application patches across endpoints in an Action1 organization,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like action1_list_endpoints or action1_list_organizations. It also specifies the return fields, further clarifying scope.
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?
It provides clear context: this tool is for listing missing patches and notes that the org id can be obtained from action1_list_organizations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'accessible to configured credentials', hinting at auth. Does not detail return format or pagination, but as a simple list tool, it is adequate for understanding behavior.
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, then provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place—no fluff.
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, description explains primary output (org IDs) and positions tool as prerequisite for others. Lacks detail on additional fields, but sufficient for a simple list tool with zero parameters.
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?
Input schema has no parameters (0 params, 100% coverage). Baseline of 4 applies. Description adds no parameter info because none exist.
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?
Clearly states it lists all Action1 organizations (tenants) accessible to configured credentials. Differentiates from siblings by specifying that the returned org IDs are required by other tools (list_endpoints, list_policies, list_missing_updates).
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?
Explicitly says 'Use this first when working with multi-tenant data' and that org IDs are required by other tools, providing clear context. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is strong.
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:

[![action1-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/wyre-technology/action1-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/wyre-technology/action1-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![action1-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/wyre-technology/action1-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/wyre-technology/action1-mcp)

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/wyre-technology/action1-mcp'

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