Skip to main content
Glama

Moltline Agent Governance

by com.moltlinestudio

Injection Scan

injection_scan
Read-onlyIdempotent

Scan untrusted text for prompt-injection patterns before ingestion. FREE.

Use on any web page, email, or document an agent is about to ingest to catch prompt-injection and data-exfiltration patterns before they reach the agent's context. Typical input {"text": ""} returns {"injection_suspected": bool, "count": N, "hits": [{"line": N, "pattern": "...", "text": ""}], "note": "..."}.

Not for reviewing a skill file you control (audit_skill_file), and a clean result is not a guarantee of safety - it reports pattern matches only. 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesThe untrusted content to scan, pasted as a single string.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds further context: error handling (never raises protocol error, returns error object), idempotency and safety to retry, and the exact output structure. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Single paragraph with clear front-loading: purpose first, then usage context, then typical input/output, then distinctions, then error handling, then reassurance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Covers what it does, when to use, when not, output fields (injection_suspected, count, hits, note), error behavior, idempotency, and safety guarantees. With a single parameter and thorough annotations, the description is fully self-contained and leaves no open questions.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description. The tool description adds a concrete example of typical input JSON, which helps the agent understand how to structure the parameter value. This goes slightly beyond the schema alone.

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 scans untrusted text for prompt-injection patterns before ingestion, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tool audit_skill_file by explicitly saying what it is not for.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (on web pages, emails, documents before ingestion) and when not to use (not for reviewing a skill file you control, referencing audit_skill_file). Also qualifies that a clean result is not a safety guarantee.

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 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

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

All eight tools target distinct governance concerns: domain readiness, config audit, skill audit, injection scanning, inventory, scope checking, policy generation, and persona loading. No two tools overlap in purpose, making selection unambiguous.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are consistently in snake_case and describe their function clearly. Minor inconsistency: most tools use a noun_verb or verb_noun pattern, but 'get_auditor_persona' uses a 'get_' prefix not seen elsewhere, and 'governance_policy' is noun_noun.

Tool Count5/5

With 8 tools, the server covers the core governance workflow without being overly broad or narrow. Each tool feels necessary, and the count is ideal for an MCP server focused on auditing, scanning, and policy generation.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is comprehensive for the domain: readiness scanning, config/script auditing, injection detection, inventory management, blast-radius scoring, policy generation, and persona standardization. There are no obvious missing operations for typical governance tasks.

Resources