Burnes Atelier Operations Reconciliation
Server Details
Deterministic operations reconciliation for AI agents: COMPLETE, INCOMPLETE, or NEEDS_REVIEW.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Available Tools
1 toolreconcile_operationsOperations Reconciliation EvidenceBInspect
Deterministic operational handoff reconciliation. Returns COMPLETE, INCOMPLETE, or NEEDS_REVIEW with missing requirements, normalized packet, and hash-bound proof. Paid execution: $5.00 USDC via x402 on Base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| subject | Yes | ||
| evidence | No | ||
| next_owner | No | ||
| request_id | No | ||
| actions_taken | No | ||
| current_state | No | ||
| completion_claim | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| decision | Yes | |
| disclaimer | No | |
| request_id | Yes | |
| requirements | Yes | |
| request_sha256 | Yes | |
| response_sha256 | Yes | |
| service_version | Yes | |
| normalized_packet | Yes | |
| missing_requirements | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses determinism, paid execution via x402 on Base, and the substantive output components. It does not discuss side effects, failure modes, or what happens if payment fails, but for a reconciliation/proof operation this is a reasonably transparent disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two dense sentences convey the operation, the verdict types, the output payload components, and the payment requirement. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place. There is no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists, the tool has seven parameters with deeply nested objects, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no input guidance. The description covers the return contract and cost but leaves the input contract underspecified. An agent would likely struggle to construct a valid request without external examples or parameter documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions no parameter names. It only implies that missing requirements are computed from the submitted handoff data. An agent cannot determine how to populate subject, evidence, actions_taken, next_owner, or completion_claim from the description alone. Property names and enums in the schema help somewhat, but the description adds very little parameter-level meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states that this is a deterministic operational handoff reconciliation returning COMPLETE, INCOMPLETE, or NEEDS_REVIEW with missing requirements, normalized packet, and hash-bound proof. The resource and function are clear even though the main verb is implied by 'reconciliation'. No sibling tools exist, so distinction is not needed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides context that this is for operational handoff reconciliation and warns that execution costs $5.00 USDC. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool, when not to use it, or what prerequisites or alternatives exist. With no siblings, the absence of alternatives is acceptable, but the usage trigger remains implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
1 tool update
- First observed
reconcile_operations
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Deterministic decision layer for autonomous agents. Reproducible PROCEED, REVIEW, SKIP verdicts.
Deterministic AI code review, with an audit record. Governance inside the agent loop.
Pre-execution governance for AI agents. Deterministic PASS/FAIL/REVIEW verdicts, replayable proof.
Verifies AI agent work end to end: real artifacts and outcomes checked, not self-reported success.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceThe open-source review layer for AI agents. Work done for humans is decided by humans.18361AGPL 3.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables AI agents to replace self-reported done checkboxes with verified, evidence-based completion tracking, using automated FAIL_TO_PASS/PASS_TO_PASS tests, mandatory mutation checking, and explicit human/AI reviews when automated proof is impossible.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceDeterministic AI code review with audit records, providing stack-specific rulesets and governance for coding agents.1MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceProvides durable mission state for AI agents, enabling crash-safe recovery, verified completion, and explicit reconciliation of uncertain side effects without duplicate or blind retries.Apache 2.0
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
There is only one tool, so there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly defined by its name and description.
The single tool uses a clear and conventional verb_noun pattern ('reconcile_operations'). With no other tools, there is no inconsistency in naming.
The server contains just one tool, which is below the typical 3-15 range, but the domain is highly specific and narrow. The tool covers its intended operation fully, so the count is only slightly thin.
The reconciliation tool provides a complete lifecycle for its domain: it evaluates completeness, returns missing requirements, supplies a normalized packet, and produces a hash-bound proof. There are no apparent gaps or dead ends.