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.
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.2/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
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.
The single tool name follows a clear verb_noun pattern ('get_evidence_signal_requirements'), which is internally consistent and informative.
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.
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 toolget_evidence_signal_requirementsEvidence Signal RequirementsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Returns MUJ428 evidence-check payment, network, endpoint, and assurance-pricing requirements before an autonomous payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
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
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 Servers
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceGTM 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.111111MIT

industrylens-mcpofficial
Flicense-qualityCmaintenanceBrowse IndustryLens's published competitive-intelligence reports and head-to-head competitor comparisons from any AI agent — real, source-backed data.
Sociality MCPofficial
Alicense-qualityDmaintenanceSocial media analytics, post insights, and competitor benchmarking for AI agents.6MIT- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceDetects hiring intent signals by scanning job boards for specific companies. Returns structured role data for outbound sales targeting.1901MIT