Skip to main content

agentcheckup

Diagnose your agent setup before your agent does.

CI PyPI Python License: MIT

Every other MCP tool looks at one server. None of them look at what happens when you load five.

$ agentcheckup

agentcheckup 0.4.0  |  3 server(s)  |  4 tool(s)  |  ~442 tokens per request

  Grade C    Score  79/100   1 error  2 warning  1 info

  CONFLICTS (1)
    AGT201  Tool name 'read_file' is exposed by both 'files' and 'git'.
            [files/read_file <-> git/read_file]
            fix: Hard collision: the client keeps one and the other is
                 unreachable. Rename one, or use a gateway that prefixes.

  RISKS (2)
    AGT101  Server 'github' runs unpinned npx package
            '@modelcontextprotocol/server-github'.
    AGT107  Server 'github' stores credential(s) inline:
            GITHUB_PERSONAL_ACCESS_TOKEN.

  NUDGES (1 across 1 rule(s), no score impact)
    AGT105  Server did not return a tool list  (1)
            github

The problem nobody is testing for

Two servers cannot see each other. Your model can. It gets a flat list of 47 tools from five servers and picks by description similarity — with no way to know that files.read_file and git.read_file are different things.

Three failure modes follow, and no existing tool catches them:

1. Hard collision. Two servers expose the same tool name. The client keeps one, the other is silently unreachable. You spend an afternoon debugging "why won't it read the file" when the answer is "it's calling the other one".

2. Soft collision. github.search and docs.search with 70% overlapping descriptions. Selection becomes a coin flip that looks exactly like model flakiness. It isn't — it's your manifest.

3. Context tax. An agent pays for the full tool manifest on every request. 47 tools with 200-character descriptions is thousands of tokens before the user says anything. Nobody budgets for it because nobody measures it.

agentcheckup measures all three, in one command, from the configs you already have.

What it checks

Layer Question it answers Rules
Conflicts Will my agent pick the wrong tool? AGT201–AGT203
Risks Is my setup unsafe? AGT001–AGT107
Budget What does my manifest cost per request? reported on every run

36 rules in total. Full reference: docs/rules.md.

Install

pip install agentcheckup
# or run without installing
uvx agentcheckup

Python 3.10+. Zero runtime dependencies — no SDK, no tokenizer, no embeddings, no network calls. It reads JSON, starts processes, prints text.

Usage

One command, no arguments

agentcheckup

Finds your configs automatically — 27 known locations across Claude Desktop, Claude Code (including its per-project mcpServers), Cursor, VS Code, Cline, Roo Code, Kilo Code, Windsurf, Zed, Codex CLI and Continue, plus project-local .mcp.json / .cursor/mcp.json / .vscode/mcp.json — starts each server, collects its tools, and reports.

Servers that fail to start are reported as AGT105 and skipped, not fatal. A broken server should not stop you auditing the other four.

Common flags

agentcheckup --no-spawn          # configs only, no processes started
agentcheckup --config path.json  # add a config the discovery missed
agentcheckup --no-discover       # audit only what you passed with --config
agentcheckup --timeout 40        # slow server? give it longer
agentcheckup --format json       # machine-readable
agentcheckup --fail-on warning   # CI gate

One server at a time

agentcheckup scan tools.json                    # {"tools": [...]}, {"result": {...}} or a log
agentcheckup scan --cmd "python my_server.py"   # live stdio handshake
agentcheckup config ~/.claude.json              # config rules only
agentcheckup rules                              # list every rule

As a GitHub Action

The fastest way to keep a manifest from regressing, and the version you pin is the version you run — the action installs from its own checkout.

- uses: wanjiaqing/agentcheckup@v0.3.0
  with:
    config: .mcp.json
    fail-on: warning

Full reference, including SARIF upload and score gates: docs/github-action.md.

Raw CLI in CI

- name: Diagnose agent setup
  run: |
    pip install agentcheckup
    agentcheckup --no-spawn --fail-on warning

For GitHub code scanning, emit SARIF:

- run: agentcheckup --format sarif --fail-on never > agentcheckup.sarif
- uses: github/codeql-action/upload-sarif@v4
  with:
    sarif_file: agentcheckup.sarif

One run can produce all three outputs:

agentcheckup --format text --json-out report.json --sarif-out report.sarif

Exit codes: 0 clean, 1 findings at or above --fail-on, 2 usage/load error.

How conflicts are detected

No embeddings, no model, no network — because a linter that needs a 200MB wheel is a linter that stops running on a plane.

Each tool pair across servers is scored on two signals:

  • name overlap — normalised token Jaccard (read_files ≡ read_file)
  • description overlap — token Jaccard over stopword-stripped, plural-stemmed words

A pair is flagged when the descriptions overlap ≥ 65% and the names share a head noun, or when the blended score clears 0.55. The shared-noun requirement is what keeps search_repositories and search_documents apart — without it the false-positive rate made the report untrustworthy, which is worse than no report.

It is a heuristic, and the docs say so. AGT203 is a warning, not a verdict.

How the score works

Most linters fail here: a rule that fires on 18 of 18 tools is a preference, not a defect, and charging one point each scores the official MCP servers 0/100. That number is useless, so the model is calibrated instead of invented:

Severity Cost Why
error 10 breaks a run, or endangers the host
warning 3 likely to cause wrong behaviour
info 1, capped at 10 total a human should decide

Budget is 20 points per tool, so a 200-tool manifest is not punished for being large, and a 4-tool manifest with one hard collision is not let off easy.

Calibration against four real inputs:

Input Tools Result
Clean fixture 2 A · 100
Official fetch + git + time servers 18 B · 87
Hard collision + unpinned package + plaintext token 4 C · 79
Deliberately broken fixture 7 F · 36

Repeated findings are collapsed: 12 tools missing parameter descriptions print as one line naming all twelve, and info findings are summarised one line per rule. A report nobody can read is a report nobody acts on.

Design principles

  • Zero runtime dependencies. A diagnostic that breaks because a transitive dep broke is worse than no diagnostic.
  • Stable rule IDs. AGT201 never changes meaning. Suppressions and CI thresholds keep working across releases.
  • Every finding has a fix. A rule that only says "this is bad" trains people to ignore the output.
  • Degrade, don't die. A server that will not start is one finding, not an aborted run.
  • No network calls, ever. Your config never leaves the machine. This is the one thing a commercial scanner structurally cannot promise.
  • Heuristics are labelled as heuristics. info means "a human should decide". The score is a conversation starter, not a certification.

What this is not

  • Not a sandbox. It tells you the manifest looks risky; it cannot stop the server.
  • Not a runtime guard. Nothing here runs during an agent session.
  • Not an MCP protocol validator. It checks quality and safety, not conformance — the official modelcontextprotocol/conformance suite does that.

Contributing

Adding a rule takes about ten minutes and one small file — see CONTRIBUTING.md. Rules and client adapters are the whole point of this project, so those PRs are the most welcome kind.

License

MIT

Metadata

Release files for agentcheckup 0.4.0

For a detailed explanation of source distributions (sdists) and built distributions (wheels), please see the package formats documentation.

Source distribution (sdist)

Source distribution for agentcheckup 0.4.0
File Size Uploaded Provenance Actions
agentcheckup-0.4.0.tar.gz 62.0 kB With provenance Details for agentcheckup-0.4.0.tar.gz

Built distribution (wheel)

Table of built distributions (wheels) for agentcheckup 0.4.0
File Interpreter ABI Platform Actions
agentcheckup-0.4.0-py3-none-any.whl Python 3 none any Details for agentcheckup-0.4.0-py3-none-any.whl

Total release size: 101.6 kB

Release files / agentcheckup-0.4.0.tar.gz

Download URL agentcheckup-0.4.0.tar.gz
Size 62.0 kB
Tags Source
SHA-256 checksum
How to use checksums
af538d70e8d6213c78d5ea6c48c1228f77ddfe8fc6c39cd1d57444aadaaf73d6
BLAKE2b-256 checksum
How to use checksums
c30d866f2a0b5dd30f52053d6d198aadb678c74f3e57702e89e3220d1e125d07
Upload date
Uploaded using Trusted Publishing?
What is trusted publishing?
Yes
Uploaded via twine/7.0.0 CPython/3.13.16

Provenance

Provenance describes where a file came from. On PyPI, provenance is shared via attestations, which provide a verifiable record of the build or publishing details. View details, limitations and caveats.

PyPI Publish Attestation

PyPI verified that this artifact, at this checksum, originated from the publisher listed below.

Signed by GitHub Actions, verified by PyPI on Nov 7, 2026.

Transparency log

Release files / agentcheckup-0.4.0-py3-none-any.whl

Download URL agentcheckup-0.4.0-py3-none-any.whl
Size 39.6 kB
Tags Python 3
SHA-256 checksum
How to use checksums
d92e670357b51de6b0afc2016998280fc27ddd173344e399fe4dca9a467f248b
BLAKE2b-256 checksum
How to use checksums
0509034c869ab575badee67f0353e3216602f72fe88b639b588ec50c74b082da
Upload date
Uploaded using Trusted Publishing?
What is trusted publishing?
Yes
Uploaded via twine/7.0.0 CPython/3.13.16

Provenance

Provenance describes where a file came from. On PyPI, provenance is shared via attestations, which provide a verifiable record of the build or publishing details. View details, limitations and caveats.

PyPI Publish Attestation

PyPI verified that this artifact, at this checksum, originated from the publisher listed below.

Signed by GitHub Actions, verified by PyPI on Nov 7, 2026.

Transparency log

Security for agentcheckup 0.4.0

Provenance

Provenance describes where a file came from. On PyPI, provenance is shared via attestations, which provide a verifiable record of the build or publishing details. View details, limitations and caveats.

Full provenance

Both files in this release have been uploaded with provenance metadata.

Select from 2 files

Attestation for agentcheckup-0.4.0.tar.gz

PyPI Publish Attestation

PyPI verified that this artifact, at this checksum, originated from the publisher listed below.

Signed by GitHub Actions, verified by PyPI on Nov 7, 2026.

Transparency log

A note on package security

PyPI is a repository for distributing packages, not a service for auditing them. While third-party security researchers and our staff do their best to detect and remove malicious packages, PyPI cannot guarantee the quality, security or suitability of any given package.

To learn more about protecting yourself from malicious actors, visit our package security documentation.

Anthropic, PBC Visionary sponsor Bloomberg Visionary sponsor Hudson River Trading Visionary sponsor Meta Visionary sponsor NVIDIA Visionary sponsor Microsoft Sustainability sponsor Depot Continuous Integration AWS Cloud computing and Security Sponsor Datadog Monitoring Fastly CDN Google Download Analytics Sentry Error logging StatusPage Status page