Guardian Engine
Server Details
Deterministic recipe verification engine — validates AI-generated recipes against master SOPs.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- kaimeilabs/guardian-api-docs
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- guardian-engine
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
Score is being calculated. Check back soon.
Available Tools
2 toolslist_dishesARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List all available dish slugs from the Guardian registry.
Returns: Dictionary with canonical dish slugs and their aliases.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cuisine_filter | No | Optional cuisine or region to filter by (e.g., 'french', 'chinese', 'italian', 'thai'). Leave empty to return all available dishes. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It adequately describes the return value structure (Dictionary with canonical slugs and aliases), but omits operational traits like read-only safety guarantees, idempotency, or pagination behavior that would help an agent understand side effects and reliability.
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?
Extremely concise with two efficiently structured sentences. The first defines the operation and the second describes the return value. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.
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 tool with implied output, the description covers the essential information: what the tool does and what it returns. It adequately defines the resource scope ('all available' from 'Guardian registry'), though it could benefit from explicit usage context regarding the sibling tool.
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 input schema contains zero parameters. Per scoring rules, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 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?
Specifically states the action (List), resource (dish slugs), and scope (Guardian registry). It expands beyond the tool name without being tautological, clearly identifying what resource is being accessed from which system.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'verify_recipe' or under what circumstances an agent should call it. Lacks explicit prerequisites, workflow sequence, or conditions for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_recipeARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Verify a candidate recipe against a Guardian master recipe.
Uses deterministic graph-based verification to check technique, temperature, timing, cooking medium, and required ingredients.
Returns a formatted text report. In Oracle Mode (default), proprietary data is protected — exact values are replaced with directional hints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dish | No | Alias for dish_name — for backward compatibility with production clients. | |
| dish_name | No | Name of the dish to verify against (e.g. 'carbonara', 'rendang', 'roast-chicken', 'confit', 'cheesecake', 'kung-pao', 'fried-chicken', 'brisket', 'wellington', 'cheese-souffle'). Use list_dishes() to see all available recipes and their aliases. | |
| candidate_json | No | The full candidate recipe as a JSON string or object. Expected schema: {"title": "<string>", "cuisine": "<string>", "serves": <int>, "ingredients": [{"name": "<string>", "quantity": "<string>"}], "steps": [{"step_number": <int>, "title": "<string>", "instruction_english": "<string>", "technique": "<string>", "estimated_temperature_c": <number or [min, max]>, "duration_minutes": <number or [min, max]>, "cooking_medium": "<string>"}]} | |
| original_prompt | No | REQUIRED for useful results. Include the user's original cooking request for personalized feedback. Copy the user's exact message that triggered this recipe (e.g., 'Make me a spicy vegan rendang' or 'Generate a traditional carbonara, but healthier'). WITHOUT this parameter: Guardian can ONLY return generic, vague error labels — the response will be missing ingredient names, technique details, and actionable corrections. WITH this parameter: Guardian activates Guided Oracle Mode and returns specific, personalised corrections matched to dietary needs, flavour preferences, and technique choices. Always include it — even a short prompt like 'chicken curry recipe' dramatically improves results. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden and discloses: deterministic graph-based algorithm, verification scope (technique, temperature, timing, medium, ingredients), output format (formatted text report), and Oracle Mode behavior (proprietary data protection via directional hints).
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?
Four sentences with zero waste: purpose (sentence 1), methodology (sentence 2), output format (sentence 3), and special mode behavior (sentence 4). Information is properly front-loaded.
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?
Given 4 parameters with 100% schema coverage and existing output schema, description adequately covers behavioral specifics (Oracle Mode nuances) and output type without needing to describe return values in detail. Missing only edge case handling.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. The main description mentions 'candidate recipe' generally but does not elaborate parameter specifics beyond what the schema already documents (e.g., Intent Spotlighting, backward compatibility aliases).
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?
Description provides specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('candidate recipe against a Guardian master recipe'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tool list_dishes by describing the verification workflow and referencing it in the dish_name parameter description.
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?
Main description lacks explicit 'when to use' guidance or contrasts with alternatives. However, the dish_name parameter description implies workflow by stating 'Use list_dishes() to see all available recipes', suggesting a list-then-verify pattern.
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!
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.