Skip to main content
Glama

Nervous System

by com.100levelup.api

accountability_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Detects when an LLM agent fabricated a solution instead of finding the real one. Scans for: placeholder credentials next to real ones in backups, duplicate files/directories serving the same purpose, config files with defaults when populated versions exist elsewhere, and recently created workarounds for things that already exist. Run this after every session to catch fabrication before it costs time and money.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoSpecific path to check (default: project root)
scopeNoWhat to check. full = all checks. credentials = scan for placeholder keys next to real ones. duplicates = find files/dirs that duplicate existing ones. workarounds = detect recently created alternatives to existing resources.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds behavioral details on scanning patterns (credentials, duplicates, workarounds), matching the safety profile. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then specifics, then usage advice. No redundancy, every 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 check tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description is quite complete: purpose, scan types, run frequency. Could mention return format, but not critical.

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% with good descriptions. The tool description reinforces scope meanings and default path, adding value by aligning with enum options. No output schema, but this is adequate.

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 detects fabrication by LLM agents, listing specific scans (placeholder credentials, duplicates, workarounds). It distinguishes from sibling audit tools by focusing on fabricated solutions.

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 'Run this after every session' and provides reasoning. Does not mention when not to use or compare to siblings, but 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 Nervous System 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among multiple audit/check tools (e.g., accountability_check, drift_audit, security_audit). However, descriptions and naming help differentiate their specific scopes, so ambiguity is low.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_archive_safety, propagate_family_member), making them predictable and easy to understand.

Tool Count4/5

33 tools is on the high side, but the server covers a broad domain (system health, audits, propagation, session management, etc.). The count is justified by the comprehensive scope, though it may feel heavy for agents.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the entire lifecycle of system management: health monitoring, audits, propagation, sessions, compliance, and more. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose of a nervous system framework.

Resources