agentdataboundary-mcp
Server Details
Permission boundary receipts for ChatGPT agents.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- clauxel/agent-data-boundary-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 1.4/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of data boundary management: exporting plans, flagging fields, mapping permissions, and summarizing boundaries. No overlap in functionality.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase snake_case (export_remediation_plan, flag_sensitive_fields, map_permissions, summarize_boundary), making them predictable and easy to distinguish.
Four tools is well-scoped for a focused domain like data boundary management. Each tool serves a clear purpose without excess or deficiency.
The set covers key operations: exporting plans, flagging sensitive fields, mapping permissions, and summarizing boundaries. Minor gaps like updating or deleting might exist, but for a specialized server the coverage is strong.
Available Tools
4 toolsexport_remediation_planDInspect
AgentData Boundary export remediation plan
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sample | Yes | ||
| context | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description provides no behavioral information (e.g., whether this is a read or write operation, any side effects, permissions needed).
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?
The description is only one short phrase, but it is not appropriately sized because it fails to convey essential information. Conciseness without substance is not valuable.
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?
Given no output schema and only two parameters with no descriptions, the description is grossly incomplete. It lacks all context needed for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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 does not explain what 'sample' or 'context' mean or how they affect the export. The agent cannot infer parameter purposes.
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 is a phrase that echoes the name: 'AgentData Boundary export remediation plan'. It does not state a clear action like 'export' or 'generate' a plan. The purpose is implied but not explicit, and it does not distinguish from siblings like 'summarize_boundary'.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., flag_sensitive_fields, map_permissions, summarize_boundary). The agent has no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
flag_sensitive_fieldsDInspect
AgentData Boundary flag sensitive fields
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sample | Yes | ||
| context | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it does not. It fails to indicate whether the tool performs a read or write operation, or what side effects occur, leaving the agent uninformed about critical behavioral traits.
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?
The description is extremely short (5 words), but this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness. It is under-specified rather than concise, providing insufficient information for effective tool selection or invocation.
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?
Given the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should compensate but does not. It omits any explanation of return values, side effects, or typical use cases, leaving a large gap in context for the agent.
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?
The input schema defines two parameters ('sample' and 'context') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no explanation of their purpose or expected values. The agent has no semantic guidance for parameter usage.
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 'AgentData Boundary flag sensitive fields' is vague and does not clearly specify the tool's action or resource. It fails to distinguish from siblings like 'map_permissions' or 'summarize_boundary', lacking a specific verb and resource.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
map_permissionsDInspect
AgentData Boundary map permissions
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sample | Yes | ||
| context | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, modifies permissions, requires authentication, or has side effects. 'Map permissions' implies a transformation but lacks detail.
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?
The description is only four words, which is overly terse. While brevity is valued, it sacrifices clarity and substance, making it unhelpful for an AI agent.
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?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and a vague description, the tool is severely underdocumented. The agent lacks essential context about inputs, behavior, and outputs, making correct invocation unlikely.
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%, yet the description provides no explanation for the two parameters (sample, context). The agent cannot infer their meaning or usage from the description alone.
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?
Description 'AgentData Boundary map permissions' is vague; it hints at mapping permissions but does not specify the action or clarify what 'AgentData Boundary' refers to. Does not distinguish from siblings like export_remediation_plan.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like flag_sensitive_fields or summarize_boundary. Missing when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
summarize_boundaryDInspect
AgentData Boundary summarize boundary
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sample | Yes | ||
| context | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it does not. There is no mention of side effects, read-only nature, permissions, 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but fails to convey any useful information, making it under-specified rather than concise. Every word is wasted.
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?
Given the lack of output schema and vague parameters, the description is completely inadequate for an AI agent to understand the tool's functionality or expected output.
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 provides no explanation of the 'sample' or 'context' parameters. Their purpose and format are entirely unclear.
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 'AgentData Boundary summarize boundary' is a near-tautology of the tool name, providing no specific verb or resource to clarify what the tool does. It does not distinguish from siblings like export_remediation_plan or flag_sensitive_fields.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any contextual cues for appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
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
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!