Moltline Agent Governance & MCP Auditor

Inventory Report

inventory_report

Read-onlyIdempotent

Build a governance inventory with risk tiers from a raw agent list. FREE.

Turns a list of agents / MCP servers / skills into an audit-ready summary with critical/elevated/standard tiers and unowned-agent flags. Typical input {"items": "[{"name": "deploy-bot", "owner": "ana"}]"} returns {"total": N, "tiers": {"critical": N, ...}, "unowned_agents": [...], "inventory": [{"name": ..., "owner": ..., "tier": ..., "orphaned": bool}], "reading": "...", "note": "..."}.

Use to turn a raw agent list into risk tiers. Not for auditing any single agent in depth (audit_mcp_config, scope_check). Errors: on invalid, missing, or malformed input this tool never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": ""}. Every call is read-only and idempotent, so after correcting the input it is always safe to retry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes	The fleet as a string — a JSON array of {name, owner?, capabilities?, last_seen?} objects, or plain newline-separated agent names.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by clarifying error behavior ('never raises a protocol error — returns an error object with fix instructions'), which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction between description and annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a one-line summary, then a detailed example, then usage guidelines and error handling. It is slightly verbose with the long example but still efficient for the information conveyed. 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?

Given the single parameter, low complexity, and presence of output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and error handling. It could briefly mention that the output schema defines the return structure, but it's near-complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by providing an example input and output shape, including the format for the 'items' parameter, which meaningfully augments the schema's description.

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 'build[s] a governance inventory with risk tiers from a raw agent list,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'audit_mcp_config' and 'scope_check' which are for in-depth single agent auditing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool ('Turn a raw agent list into risk tiers') and when not to ('Not for auditing any single agent in depth') while naming alternatives ('audit_mcp_config, scope_check'). It also mentions the tool is free and safe to retry on errors.

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

All Moltline Agent Governance & MCP Auditor tools Inspect

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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting a different aspect of agent governance: domain readiness, config auditing, skill file auditing, injection scanning, inventory, blast radius scoring, policy generation, and persona loading. Each description explicitly states what the tool is not for, eliminating ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: some tools start with a verb (audit_mcp_config, get_auditor_persona), others with a noun (agent_readiness_scan, injection_scan, inventory_report, scope_check), and governance_policy is a plain noun phrase with no verb. There is no predictable pattern across the set.

Tool Count5/5

8 tools is well-scoped for the domain of agent governance and auditing. Each tool serves a distinct and necessary function without redundancy, covering readiness, configuration, skill files, injection, inventory, permissions, policy, and persona.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the major governance activities: audit, scan, inventory, policy generation, and blast radius. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to verify compliance against a generated policy, but the existing audit tools can be used for that purpose.

Resources

Need Help?