Skip to main content
Glama

TunnelMind Data API

by ai.tunnelmind

ghostroute_check

GhostRoute is TunnelMind's fourth lens: routing-integrity / sovereignty verification. It answers "is this infrastructure where it claims to be, owned by who it claims, routing where it says — and does that match the sovereign jurisdiction it asserts?" It resolves the originating ASN owner, RPKI validity, the certificate-issuing CA's jurisdiction, and matches the subject against a curated AI-infrastructure corpus to recover any sovereignty CLAIM (e.g. an "EU-sovereign" AI service), then scores reality against claim.

Use this tool when:

  • An agent is about to route data/inference to an endpoint that claims a jurisdiction (e.g. EU data residency, FedRAMP, sovereign-AI).

  • You want to detect a US-fronted (Cloudflare/AWS/GCP) endpoint masquerading as sovereign-EU infrastructure, an RPKI-invalid origin (possible hijack), or a sanctioned operator.

Inputs:

  • entity (path, required): an IPv4/IPv6, domain, ASN (AS####), or cert SHA-1/256.

  • receipt (query, optional): when true, issues a signed, persisted GhostRoute receipt (GR-YYYY-NNNNNNN) instead of an ephemeral verdict.

Returns:

  • sovereign_tier: VERIFIED | PLAUSIBLE | MISMATCH | CRITICAL_MISMATCH (or null if no claim).

  • sovereign_integrity: [0,1] score; origin_as, rpki_status, cert_ca, claimed_sovereign_zone, is_ai_infrastructure, ai_owner, sanctions_match.

  • _meta.caveats / _meta.penalties: what was and wasn't determinable.

Latency:

  • Typical 300-900ms on a cold subject (live BGP/RPKI/cert lookups), faster when cached.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entityYesAn IPv4/IPv6 address, domain, ASN (`AS####`), or cert SHA-1/256 to check.
receiptNoWhen `true`, issues a signed, persisted GhostRoute receipt (`GR-YYYY-NNNNNNN`) instead of an ephemeral verdict.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description reveals that it performs live lookups, returns caveats/penalties, and can optionally persist a signed receipt. It also states typical latency, though it doesn't disclose auth or rate limits.

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 structured with sections (use-when, inputs, returns, latency) and front-loaded with purpose, but it's longer than necessary—some elaboration could be tightened.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description provides an exceptionally complete picture: return fields, scoring tiers, caveats, latency, and even the receipt identifier format. It leaves little ambiguity.

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 covers both parameters at 100%; the description adds the accepted formats (IPv4/IPv6, domain, ASN, cert hash) and details the receipt's persistent ID format, going 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 names a specific verb (verifies routing-integrity/sovereignty) and resource (endpoint infrastructure), and clearly distinguishes this 'fourth lens' from sibling tools by explaining the claim-vs-reality scoring.

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 lists concrete scenarios ('Use this tool when...') such as routing data to jurisdiction-claiming endpoints or detecting masquerading/hijacked origins. It doesn't mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the guidance is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All TunnelMind Data API toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools overlap in purpose, such as cross_lens_verify, cross_lens_lookup, profile_entity, and preflight_should_i_act, which all return node verdicts with subtle differences. Sigil verification tools and receipt-related tools also have similar names and require deep reading to distinguish.

Naming Consistency3/5

The tool names are mostly readable, but the pattern is mixed: some use verb_noun (get_domain, create_subscription) while others use domain prefixes (sigil_*, ghostroute_*, intel_*). Within each domain, naming is consistent, but the overall style lacks uniformity.

Tool Count1/5

With 90 tools, this server is extremely overloaded. Even for a multi-purpose data API, the sheer number overwhelms and makes navigation difficult, far exceeding the typical well-scoped MCP server. The count is an extreme mismatch for the apparent scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is very comprehensive, covering tracker lookup, cross-lens verification, receipts, compliance, subscriptions, tasks, intel probes, and more. Minor gaps exist, such as no batch cross-lens verification, but core workflows are well covered.

Resources