Skip to main content
Glama

MUJ428 Trust Layer

Server Details

Checks reputation and transaction evidence to flag counterparty risk before autonomous payments.

Status
Unhealthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL

Glama MCP Gateway

Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.

MCP client
Glama
MCP server

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.

100% free. Your data is private.
Tool DescriptionsA

Average 4.2/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap. The tool's purpose is clearly defined as retrieving MuJ428 evidence-signal requirements.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool name follows a clear verb_noun pattern ('get_evidence_signal_requirements'), which is internally consistent and informative.

Tool Count3/5

The server has only one tool, which feels thin for a 'Trust Layer' scope. However, the tool serves a specific, well-defined function, making the count borderline acceptable.

Completeness2/5

The domain is autonomous payment trust, and only a 'get requirements' operation is exposed. There are no tools for submitting evidence, checking status, or executing payments, leaving significant workflow gaps.

Available Tools

1 tool
get_evidence_signal_requirementsEvidence Signal RequirementsA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Returns MUJ428 evidence-check payment, network, endpoint, and assurance-pricing requirements before an autonomous payment.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds specific categories of returned requirements, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or potential edge cases, similar to the TDQS 4.3 calibration example.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and conveys all essential information without redundancy or filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description provides adequate context about the return content and usage timing. However, the cryptic identifier 'MUJ428' is unexplained, and without an output schema, more detail on the structure of the returned requirements would improve completeness.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, making the schema fully definitive. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is appropriate for an empty input schema; the baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 uses the verb 'Returns' with a specific resource: MUJ428 evidence-check payment, network, endpoint, and assurance-pricing requirements. This definitively states the tool's function and distinguishes it from any potential alternatives, even in the absence of sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly indicates the tool should be used 'before an autonomous payment,' providing a clear temporal usage context. With no sibling tools, explicit alternatives are unnecessary, though no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    GTM signal intelligence suite for AI agents. Six tools: hiring signals, tech stack detection, company-to-LinkedIn resolution, ICP scoring, job board scanning, and a combined signals aggregator. Built for outbound sales workflows.
    11
    111
    1
    MIT
  • F
    license
    -
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Browse IndustryLens's published competitive-intelligence reports and head-to-head competitor comparisons from any AI agent — real, source-backed data.

View all MCP Servers

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.

Resources