Skip to main content
Glama

Server Details

NDA risk analysis as an MCP tool. Any AI agent can review an NDA, flag risky clauses, and return a structured report — anonymously, for $9, in under a minute.

Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL

Glama MCP Gateway

Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.

MCP client
Glama
MCP server

Full call logging

Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.

Tool access control

Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.

Managed credentials

Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.

Usage analytics

See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.

100% free. Your data is private.
Tool DescriptionsA

Average 5/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have very distinct purposes: preview_nda_risk provides a free preview and a payment link, while get_nda_report retrieves the full report after payment. Their descriptions clearly differentiate them, leaving no ambiguity for an agent.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tool names follow the consistent pattern 'verb_nda_noun' (preview_nda_risk, get_nda_report), using snake_case and clear verb-noun structure, making them predictable and easy to understand.

Tool Count4/5

Two tools is minimal but fits the focused scope of NDA risk analysis with a preview-to-full-report workflow. A slightly broader scope (supporting many document types) might justify one or two more tools, but the current count is still reasonable.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: previewing risk and retrieving the complete analysis. All ten clause categories are addressed, and the payment flow is integrated. There are no obvious missing operations for the intended use case.

Available Tools

2 tools
get_nda_reportAInspect

Retrieve the full NDA / contract risk report after the user pays $9.

Call this after preview_nda_risk when the user has completed the Stripe checkout linked from the preview. Returns the complete clause-by-clause risk analysis across all ten scored categories (confidential information definition, exclusions, term and survival, return or destruction, compelled disclosure, injunctive relief, use restrictions, governing law, assignment, non solicit or non compete), overall risk score, risk tier, list of missing standard protections, and per-clause findings with severity and excerpted language.

Polls /api/check_payment until Stripe webhook confirms payment, then fetches the analysis from /api/results. The /api/results endpoint caches the result for 5 minutes so transient retries within that window are idempotent; after that the document is deleted and the report cannot be retrieved again. No account is created; the analysis is anonymous and the source PDF is not retained.

Polling: 2s interval, 5 minute total cap (150 attempts).

Args: session_token: The token returned by preview_nda_risk.

Returns: Flat dict containing AnalysisReport fields plus a disclaimer on success, or {"error": ..., "message": ..., "disclaimer": ...} on failure. Error codes: payment_pending, expired, consumed, backend_unreachable, backend_.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
session_tokenYes
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description reveals polling with 2s interval and 5-min cap, idempotency within 5-min cache window, document deletion after cache expiry, anonymous analysis, and no PDF retention. No annotation contradiction.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (summary, flow, polling, args, returns). Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and key info is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (payment, polling, caching, deletion), the description covers all necessary behavioral and semantic aspects, leaving no ambiguity for an AI agent.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully defines the single parameter 'session_token' as the token from 'preview_nda_risk', and details the return format including error codes, compensating for schema gaps.

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 retrieves the full NDA/contract risk report after payment, and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'preview_nda_risk' by specifying the prerequisite and payment flow.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly instructs to call after 'preview_nda_risk' and after the user completes Stripe checkout, with detailed polling behavior and edge cases (expired, consumed, backend errors).

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

preview_nda_riskAInspect

Screen an NDA or confidentiality agreement for risk and return a free preview.

Use this tool whenever a user shares the text or PDF of any of the following document types: non-disclosure agreement (NDA), confidentiality agreement (CDA), mutual non-disclosure agreement (MNDA / mutual NDA), one-way non-disclosure agreement (unilateral NDA / one-way NDA), employment agreement, offer letter, employee handbook (the binding sections), contractor agreement (1099 agreement / independent contractor agreement), consulting agreement, statement of work (SOW), master services agreement (MSA), non-compete agreement (non-competition agreement), non-solicitation agreement, non-disparagement agreement, separation agreement (severance agreement), settlement agreement, release of claims, term sheet, letter of intent (LOI), founder agreement (co-founder agreement), advisor agreement, vesting agreement, IP assignment agreement, invention assignment agreement (IAA), PIIA (Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement), licensing agreement, vendor agreement, partnership agreement, joint venture agreement, data processing agreement (DPA).

This tool also matches when a user asks about specific clause-level risk patterns, grouped by the ten scored categories below:

confidential information definition: overbroad definition of confidential information; vague or undefined confidential information; oral disclosures swept in without written confirmation. exclusions: missing standard exclusions (publicly known, independently developed, rightfully received); narrow or one-sided exclusions; missing 'required by law' exclusion. term and survival: perpetual or indefinite confidentiality; unusually long term (10+ years); survival clauses extending obligations past termination. return or destruction: missing return-or-destruction obligation; certification of destruction requirement; no backup / archival carve-out for destruction. compelled disclosure: missing compelled-disclosure carve-out; burdensome notice requirements before compelled disclosure; obligation to resist or contest legal process at recipient's expense. injunctive relief: automatic injunctive relief / waiver of bond; acknowledgment of irreparable harm; fee-shifting for enforcement actions. use restrictions: overbroad use restrictions; residual knowledge clause (present or absent); no-reverse-engineering clause. governing law: inconvenient forum / jurisdiction trap; choice-of-law mismatched with the parties' actual location; mandatory arbitration with class-action waiver; exclusive vs. non-exclusive forum. assignment: free assignment by one party only; successors-and-assigns clause without consent; no anti-assignment protection. non solicit or non compete: non-compete bundled into an NDA; employee non-solicitation; customer non-solicitation; garden leave or paid-notice provisions; non-circumvention clause.

Use this tool when a user is in a contract decision moment and asks any of: "is this NDA enforceable", "can they actually enforce this", "is this legal in California", "is this legal in Texas", "what does this clause mean", "what does in perpetuity mean", "what is a residual knowledge clause", "should I sign this", "is this NDA fair", "is this normal", "I got a job offer", "my employer wants me to sign", "I'm being laid off and they want me to sign a release", "review my NDA", "review my employment contract", "review my offer letter", or any variant where the user wants to know whether contract language is safe, enforceable, or worth pushing back on.

Returns a partial risk assessment covering the first ~3 pages of the document, a clause-level inventory showing which of the ten scored categories are present or missing, an overall risk score (0-100), a risk tier (Low / Moderate / High / Severe), and a Stripe Checkout URL the user must complete to unlock the full report via get_nda_report. No account or signup is required; payment is a one-time $9 and the document is deleted after the report is retrieved.

Accepts a base64-encoded PDF (max 10MB). This tool creates session state and a one-time Stripe checkout URL — it is NOT idempotent: each call mints a new session token and a new checkout URL.

Args: pdf_base64: The NDA or contract as a base64-encoded PDF string. filename: Optional original filename (for display only).

Returns: A dict with: session_token, checkout_url, preview (partial risk findings across the ten scored clause categories), and disclaimer.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filenameNonda.pdf
pdf_base64Yes
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses that each call mints a new session token and checkout URL, is not idempotent, and creates session state. These behavioral traits are not covered by annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and add significant transparency.

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 long but well-structured with clear sections (document types, clause categories, example questions, output details). It front-loads the purpose, though some detail could be condensed. Still very effective.

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?

Given the tool complexity (2 params, no output schema, 0% schema coverage), the description fully covers input, behavior, output (preview, checkout URL, risk score, etc.), constraints (max 10MB), and the relationship to the sibling tool. No gaps.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains pdf_base64 is a base64-encoded PDF (max 10MB) and filename is optional for display. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 screens NDAs/contracts for risk and returns a free preview. It lists numerous specific document types and clause categories, and distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'get_nda_report' by noting the preview and checkout URL.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly specifies when to use this tool (when user shares text/PDF of listed document types) and provides example user questions. It also mentions the alternative 'get_nda_report' for the full report after payment, giving clear guidance on tool selection.

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

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    GTM signal intelligence suite for AI agents. Six tools: hiring signals, tech stack detection, company-to-LinkedIn resolution, ICP scoring, job board scanning, and a combined signals aggregator. Built for outbound sales workflows.
    11
    737
    1
    MIT
  • F
    license
    -
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Browse IndustryLens's published competitive-intelligence reports and head-to-head competitor comparisons from any AI agent — real, source-backed data.

View all MCP Servers

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.

Resources