phoenix-screen
Server Details
Phoenix/rebrand relink detection: links a debarred principal to a newly-formed business entity.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Available Tools
1 toolphoenix_relink_checkAInspect
Detect a phoenix / rebrand relink that exact-match screeners miss. Given a principal or entity name (e.g. a debarred contractor, an excluded provider, or an OFAC-listed party), this fuzzy-relinks it to NEWLY-FORMED Secretary-of-State business entities that share the name AND a second independent signal (principal address or named registered agent), while filtering out shared commercial registered-agent addresses. Returns NON-CONCLUSORY review flags with the full evidence chain and primary-source links — a research lead for human diligence, never a determination of wrongdoing. Use during M&A diligence, vendor/counterparty onboarding, or compliance screening.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Principal or entity name to check for phoenix relinks (e.g. a debarred/excluded/sanctioned party). |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it returns non-conclusory review flags with full evidence chain and primary-source links, filters out shared commercial registered-agent addresses, and positions the output as a research lead for human diligence. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds value, and the main purpose is front-loaded. It could be slightly more concise without losing key information, but overall it is well-structured.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values (non-conclusory review flags, evidence chain, links) and the matching logic. For a single-parameter tool, it provides complete context for effective use.
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 schema already covers the single parameter 'name' with a description. The tool description adds contextual examples (e.g., 'a debarred/excluded/sanctioned party') but does not provide substantial new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate due to high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool detects phoenix/rebrand relinks that exact-match screeners miss, specifies the input (principal or entity name), and describes the fuzzy matching logic. It distinguishes itself from exact-match screeners, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.
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?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use during M&A diligence, vendor/counterparty onboarding, or compliance screening') and clarifies what it does not do (returns non-conclusory review flags, never a determination). This provides clear usage context and exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.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
Company hierarchy analysis and address verification via MCP
Screen a business for federal exclusions & sanctions: OFAC SDN, HHS-OIG LEIE, SAM.gov debarment.
Resolve a vendor and buy normalized public OSHA, EPA, and SAM exclusion evidence with provenance.
Checks if an LEI-holding entity has a match in the national registry its jurisdiction expects.
11
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceResolves messy financial institution records against canonical regulatory identifiers from FDIC, NCUA, and FFIEC public datasets.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceEnables AI agents to investigate corporate ownership, trace ultimate beneficial owners, screen sanctions, detect offshore exposure, and access fully cited dossiers from 130M+ entities across 31 global registries.213691MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceAnalyzes early government notices to produce an evidence-backed map of plausible supplier companies with deterministic scoring and exact citation validation.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceCompanyLens MCP gives your AI assistant access to real corporate data from official government sources. No web scraping, no hallucinations — verified data from SEC EDGAR, UK Companies House, OpenSanctions, and USAspending.gov.52014MIT
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and distinct.
Since there is only one tool, naming consistency is not applicable; the single name follows a descriptive pattern.
One tool is minimal but acceptable for a highly specialized compliance-check server. However, it feels thin for a general screening server.
The tool provides a thorough evidence chain for phoenix/rebrand detection, covering the core function. Missing complementary tools like entity lookup or watchlist search are minor gaps.