Skip to main content
Glama

Moltline Agent Governance

by com.moltlinestudio

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYesThe fleet as a string — a JSON array of {name, owner?, capabilities?, last_seen?} objects, or plain newline-separated agent names.

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 behavioral context: it never raises protocol errors, returns an error object with fix instructions, and is read-only and idempotent. This goes beyond annotations to fully inform the agent.

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, front-loading the purpose and then providing usage, error handling, and output format. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value, earning a high score. Slight deduction for length but still very effective.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, straightforward output), the description covers all necessary aspects: input format, output structure, error behavior, usage context, and sibling differentiation. It is completely adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'items'. The description adds substantial value by providing a typical input example, explaining the format (JSON array or newline-separated), and linking it to the output structure. This goes well beyond the schema 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 verb 'build' and the resource 'governance inventory with risk tiers'. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by naming 'audit_mcp_config' and 'scope_check' for single-agent auditing, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 'Use to turn a raw agent list into risk tiers' and 'Not for auditing any single agent in depth (audit_mcp_config, scope_check)'. It also provides error handling guidance, stating the tool is safe to retry after correcting input.

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