{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"npm_npm-toolrankmcp-server","slug":"npm-toolrankmcp-server","name":"@toolrank/mcp-server","type":"mcp","url":"https://www.npmjs.com/package/@toolrank/mcp-server","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/npm-toolrankmcp-server","categories":["mcp-servers"],"tags":["[\"mcp\",\"ato\",\"agent-tool-optimization\",\"toolrank\",\"ai-agent\",\"tool-scoring\",\"mcp-server\"]"],"pricing":{"model":"open_source","free":true,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"npm_npm-toolrankmcp-server__cap_0","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.mcp.tool.definition.scoring.and.ranking","name":"mcp tool definition scoring and ranking","description":"Analyzes MCP tool definitions against a proprietary scoring framework to generate quantitative optimization scores. The system evaluates tool metadata, parameter schemas, descriptions, and integration patterns to produce ranked recommendations for improving tool discoverability by AI agents. Scoring likely incorporates factors like schema completeness, description clarity, parameter validation coverage, and semantic alignment with common agent use cases.","intents":["I want to understand how discoverable my MCP tool is to AI agents and get a numerical score","I need to identify which aspects of my tool definition are limiting agent adoption","I want to benchmark my tool's quality against other MCP tools in the ecosystem","I need specific, actionable recommendations to improve my tool's agent compatibility"],"best_for":["MCP tool developers optimizing for agent discovery","Teams building internal tool ecosystems for multi-agent systems","Tool marketplace operators ranking and recommending MCP tools"],"limitations":["Scoring algorithm and weighting factors are proprietary — no transparency into how scores are calculated","Requires well-formed MCP tool definitions; malformed schemas may produce unreliable scores","No historical scoring data or trend analysis — only point-in-time snapshots","Scoring model may not account for domain-specific tool optimization needs"],"requires":["MCP server implementation with valid tool definitions","Node.js 16+ for running the MCP server","Valid MCP protocol compliance (v1.0+)","Tool definitions with JSON schema for parameters"],"input_types":["MCP tool definition JSON","Tool metadata (name, description, parameters)","JSON Schema parameter specifications"],"output_types":["Numeric score (likely 0-100 or similar scale)","Ranked tool comparison data","Optimization recommendations (structured)"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","tool-use-integration"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"npm_npm-toolrankmcp-server__cap_1","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.mcp.tool.definition.validation.and.schema.analysis","name":"mcp tool definition validation and schema analysis","description":"Validates MCP tool definitions against the MCP protocol specification and performs structural analysis of tool schemas. The system checks for schema completeness, parameter type correctness, required field presence, and semantic consistency. It likely uses JSON Schema validation combined with custom rules for MCP-specific patterns (e.g., tool naming conventions, description length thresholds, parameter cardinality constraints).","intents":["I want to validate that my tool definition conforms to MCP protocol requirements before deployment","I need to identify missing or malformed fields in my tool schema","I want to ensure my parameter definitions are correctly typed and documented","I need to catch schema errors early in the development cycle"],"best_for":["MCP tool developers building new tools","DevOps teams validating tool definitions in CI/CD pipelines","Tool ecosystem maintainers enforcing quality standards"],"limitations":["Validation is schema-level only — cannot detect runtime behavior mismatches","No semantic validation of tool functionality (e.g., whether a tool actually does what its description claims)","Validation rules may be strict and flag legitimate edge cases as errors","No support for custom validation rules or domain-specific constraints"],"requires":["Valid JSON tool definition","MCP protocol version specification","Node.js 16+ runtime"],"input_types":["MCP tool definition JSON","JSON Schema specifications","Tool metadata objects"],"output_types":["Validation status (pass/fail)","Error and warning lists with line numbers","Schema compliance report"],"categories":["safety-moderation","tool-use-integration"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"npm_npm-toolrankmcp-server__cap_2","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.tool.optimization.recommendation.generation","name":"tool optimization recommendation generation","description":"Generates prioritized, actionable recommendations for improving tool definitions based on scoring analysis. The system identifies specific gaps in tool metadata, schema design, or description quality and suggests concrete improvements. Recommendations are likely ranked by impact on agent discoverability and include examples or templates for implementing changes (e.g., 'expand description to 150+ characters', 'add enum constraints to parameter X').","intents":["I want specific, prioritized steps to improve my tool's agent discoverability","I need examples of how to fix identified issues in my tool definition","I want to understand which improvements will have the most impact on agent adoption","I need a roadmap for incrementally optimizing my tool"],"best_for":["Individual tool developers with limited MCP expertise","Teams building tool ecosystems and wanting to establish quality standards","Tool maintainers planning optimization sprints"],"limitations":["Recommendations are generic and may not account for tool-specific use cases","No machine learning feedback loop — recommendations don't improve based on actual agent adoption outcomes","Recommendations assume standard agent behavior; specialized agents may have different optimization needs","No cost-benefit analysis of recommendations (e.g., effort to implement vs. expected discoverability gain)"],"requires":["Completed tool scoring analysis","Valid MCP tool definition","Node.js 16+ runtime"],"input_types":["Tool scoring results","MCP tool definition","Tool metadata"],"output_types":["Ranked recommendation list","Improvement examples and templates","Impact estimates (likely qualitative: high/medium/low)"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","tool-use-integration"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"npm_npm-toolrankmcp-server__cap_3","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.mcp.server.protocol.implementation.and.endpoint.exposure","name":"mcp server protocol implementation and endpoint exposure","description":"Implements the MCP server protocol to expose tool scoring and optimization capabilities as MCP resources and tools. The server handles MCP protocol handshakes, message routing, and tool invocation via the standard MCP interface. It likely uses a framework like Node.js MCP SDK to manage protocol compliance, request/response serialization, and error handling. The server exposes scoring and recommendation generation as callable MCP tools that other agents or clients can discover and invoke.","intents":["I want to integrate tool scoring into my agent's tool discovery workflow","I need to call the scoring service from my MCP client or agent framework","I want to expose tool optimization as a service that other systems can consume","I need to integrate ToolRank scoring into my MCP ecosystem infrastructure"],"best_for":["MCP client implementations and agent frameworks","Tool ecosystem platforms and marketplaces","Teams building multi-agent systems with shared tool registries"],"limitations":["Server is stateless — no persistent storage of scoring history or tool metadata","No built-in authentication or authorization — requires external security layer for production use","Single-threaded or limited concurrency — may bottleneck under high scoring request volume","No caching of scoring results — each request triggers full re-analysis"],"requires":["Node.js 16+ runtime","MCP client or framework compatible with MCP protocol v1.0+","Network connectivity to MCP server endpoint","Valid MCP tool definitions to score"],"input_types":["MCP protocol messages","Tool definition JSON","MCP resource requests"],"output_types":["MCP protocol responses","Tool scoring results","Optimization recommendations","MCP resource listings"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"npm_npm-toolrankmcp-server__cap_4","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.comparative.tool.ranking.and.benchmarking","name":"comparative tool ranking and benchmarking","description":"Compares multiple MCP tool definitions and produces ranked leaderboards or comparative analyses. The system scores a batch of tools and generates relative rankings, percentile positions, and peer comparison data. This enables tool developers to understand their tool's position within the broader MCP ecosystem and identify competitive gaps. Likely uses the same scoring algorithm as single-tool scoring but aggregates results for comparative analysis.","intents":["I want to see how my tool ranks compared to similar tools in the ecosystem","I need to understand what percentile my tool is in for agent discoverability","I want to identify which competing tools are scoring higher and why","I need benchmark data to justify tool optimization investments to stakeholders"],"best_for":["Tool developers competing in open MCP ecosystems","Tool marketplace operators ranking and recommending tools","Teams evaluating whether to build or buy MCP tools","Ecosystem maintainers identifying quality gaps"],"limitations":["Comparative rankings are only as good as the tool definitions submitted — incomplete or outdated definitions skew comparisons","No weighting for tool popularity or actual agent usage — purely definition-based scoring","Benchmarking data may become stale if tools are not re-scored regularly","No attribution of score differences to specific tool features or design choices"],"requires":["Multiple valid MCP tool definitions","Node.js 16+ runtime","MCP protocol compliance for all tools being compared"],"input_types":["Batch of MCP tool definitions","Tool metadata collections","JSON Schema specifications"],"output_types":["Ranked tool list with scores","Percentile positions","Comparative analysis reports","Leaderboard data"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","tool-use-integration"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"npm_npm-toolrankmcp-server__cap_5","uri":"capability://text.generation.language.tool.description.and.metadata.quality.analysis","name":"tool description and metadata quality analysis","description":"Analyzes the quality and completeness of tool descriptions, names, and metadata fields. The system evaluates description length, clarity, keyword coverage, semantic relevance to tool functionality, and metadata field completeness. It likely uses NLP techniques (keyword extraction, semantic similarity) to assess whether descriptions accurately represent tool capabilities and whether metadata is sufficient for agent understanding. Produces quality scores and specific feedback on description improvements.","intents":["I want to improve my tool's description to make it more discoverable by agents","I need to understand if my tool description is clear and complete enough","I want to identify keywords or concepts I'm missing from my tool metadata","I need to ensure my description accurately represents what my tool does"],"best_for":["Tool developers optimizing for semantic search and agent understanding","Non-technical tool maintainers who need guidance on description quality","Teams establishing tool documentation standards"],"limitations":["Quality analysis is heuristic-based — may not capture domain-specific terminology or specialized use cases","No feedback on whether descriptions match actual tool behavior (requires runtime testing)","Keyword suggestions may be generic and not account for niche tool categories","No support for multi-language descriptions or localization"],"requires":["Tool name and description text","Tool metadata fields","Node.js 16+ runtime"],"input_types":["Tool description text","Tool name","Tool metadata fields","Parameter descriptions"],"output_types":["Description quality score","Clarity assessment","Keyword recommendations","Metadata completeness report"],"categories":["text-generation-language","tool-use-integration"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":30,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"high","permissions":["MCP server implementation with valid tool definitions","Node.js 16+ for running the MCP server","Valid MCP protocol compliance (v1.0+)","Tool definitions with JSON schema for parameters","Valid JSON tool definition","MCP protocol version specification","Node.js 16+ runtime","Completed tool scoring analysis","Valid MCP tool definition","MCP client or framework compatible with MCP protocol v1.0+"],"failure_modes":["Scoring algorithm and weighting factors are proprietary — no transparency into how scores are calculated","Requires well-formed MCP tool definitions; malformed schemas may produce unreliable scores","No historical scoring data or trend analysis — only point-in-time snapshots","Scoring model may not account for domain-specific tool optimization needs","Validation is schema-level only — cannot detect runtime behavior mismatches","No semantic validation of tool functionality (e.g., whether a tool actually does what its description claims)","Validation rules may be strict and flag legitimate edge cases as errors","No support for custom validation rules or domain-specific constraints","Recommendations are generic and may not account for tool-specific use cases","No machine learning feedback loop — recommendations don't improve based on actual agent adoption outcomes","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.05,"quality":0.37,"ecosystem":0.33,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.75,"weights":{"adoption":0.25,"quality":0.25,"ecosystem":0.15,"match_graph":0.23,"freshness":0.12}},"observed_outcomes":{"matches":0,"success_rate":0,"avg_confidence":0,"top_intents":[],"last_matched_at":null},"maintenance":{"status":"active","updated_at":"2026-05-24T12:16:24.483Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-04-22T08:11:28.432Z","last_commit":null},"community":{"stars":null,"forks":null,"weekly_downloads":null,"model_downloads":null,"model_likes":null}},"distribution":{"claim_url":"https://unfragile.ai/submit?claim=npm-toolrankmcp-server","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=npm-toolrankmcp-server"}},"signature":"dGZ4kuBTdT9uqqLbWoNOcnJt6CR2CFL8XglcMoQUv+kRi7l4PzYXrvc/aymdWIC/okviLUj2K8fDIc5aXFN7AQ==","signedAt":"2026-06-20T08:35:12.411Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/npm-toolrankmcp-server","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/npm-toolrankmcp-server","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=npm-toolrankmcp-server","publicKey":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/trust-passport-public-key","spec":"https://unfragile.ai/trust","schema":"https://unfragile.ai/schema.json","docs":"https://unfragile.ai/docs"}}