Skip to main content
Glama

AurelianFlo

by com.aurelianflo

Server Capabilities

server_capabilities
Read-only

Free first-call capability and connection check for AurelianFlo; use it before paid tools to inspect OFAC screening workflows, access modes, and x402 payment requirements.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoPrimary structured result payload for the tool.
errorNoMachine-readable error code or message when the tool fails.
outputNoNested renderer output when a workflow bundles an artifact render.
reportNoReport-shaped payload when available; null for status-only retrieval responses.
sourceNoSource label, route, dataset, or execution metadata for the result.
messageNoHuman-readable error or status message.
successNoWhether the tool completed successfully.
artifactNoInline generated file artifact. The service does not persist a hosted download URL.
artifactsNoArtifact rendering hints keyed by format.
artifact_summaryNoDelivery and rendering metadata for an inline generated artifact.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by noting it's free and a connection check. No additional behavioral details needed given the simple nature.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part earns its place, clearly stating the tool's role and what it inspects.

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 no parameters and existing output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's function as a connection and capability check. It mentions key inspection areas, making it complete for its simplicity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific info, which meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 is a 'free first-call capability and connection check' for AurelianFlo, with specific purpose to inspect OFAC screening workflows, access modes, and x402 payment requirements. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on compliance reports and wallet operations.

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 to use it 'before paid tools' and explains it's for connection and capability inspection. While no when-not or alternatives are given, the context of a first-call check is clear.

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

All AurelianFlo 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are generally distinct, with clear differentiators like single vs batch vs report output. The queue_saved_list and report_saved_retrieve could be confused but descriptions clarify their separate domains.

Naming Consistency4/5

Prefixes like compliance_, wallet_ofac_, report_, queue_ provide consistency within subdomains, though verb order varies (e.g., report_docx_generate vs queue_saved_list).

Tool Count4/5

11 tools are appropriate for a compliance server covering screening, reporting, and optimization. Slightly on the higher side but each tool serves a unique purpose.

Completeness4/5

Covers core workflows: screening, batch, reporting, EDD memos, exposure forecasting, queue optimization, and status checks. Minor gaps like no wallet set management, but overall comprehensive.

Resources