Skip to main content
Glama

agent-guild

by io.github.AgentTanuki

guild_preflight

Run this in the moment BEFORE you delegate to, or pay, an agent endpoint you did not write. Free, no key, one call.

Separates what the endpoint CLAIMS from what it just PROVED, live. Measured across the live ecosystem on 2026-07-31: 92.9% of registry-listed agents report healthy but only 33.9% actually complete a task; 0.8% sign their Agent Card; and of agents advertising payment, 5.7% actually return a 402. x402 exact transfers are irreversible, so this has to happen before the payment, not after it.

Unlike a directory badge this is not cached and not derived from a repository at publication time — a server can change its tool descriptions after any one-off review. Checks it could not perform are returned as unknowns and are excluded from the verdict rather than averaged into it.

Example: guild_preflight(url="https://some-agent.example/a2a")

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes

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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and delivers: discloses that it performs live checks, is not cached, returns 'unknowns' for unperformable checks, and excludes unknowns from the verdict. Provides statistical context and rationale, giving a clear behavioral profile without contradiction.

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?

Every sentence serves a purpose: timing, cost, claim vs. proof, statistical justification, irreversibility rationale, distinction from cached badges, unknown-handling policy, and an example. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the most critical usage guidance.

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?

The description is complete for a tool with an output schema: it covers why, when, and how to use it, explains the unknown handling, and provides an example. The output schema presumably details return values, so no need to duplicate that. Complexity is high, but the description addresses all necessary context.

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 0%, but the description adds meaningful context for the single 'url' parameter by identifying it as an agent endpoint and providing an example (guild_preflight(url="https://some-agent.example/a2a")). This compensates for the bare schema, though more explicit format constraints would push it to 5.

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 is a preflight check run before delegating to or paying an agent endpoint, separating claims from proven behavior. It distinguishes itself from directory badges by being live and uncached, and the example invocation clarifies usage.

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 specifies when to use: 'in the moment BEFORE you delegate to, or pay, an agent endpoint you did not write.' Contrasts with cached directory badge tools, indicating when this live check is preferred over alternatives. Also notes the irreversibility of x402 transfers to emphasize timing.

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

All agent-guild 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped by prefix (ag_calc_, ag_data_, ag_json_, ag_table_, ag_text_), which helps disambiguate. However, some clusters like guild_search, guild_check, guild_risk_score, and guild_best_agent have overlapping goals (all find or evaluate agents), and guild_prove and guild_prove_verify are tightly coupled but distinct. Overall, most tools have clear purposes.

Naming Consistency4/5

The tools follow a consistent verb_noun or domain_verb pattern (e.g., ag_calc_stats, ag_data_dedupe, guild_search). The mix of ag_ and guild_ prefixes is slightly inconsistent, but within each group naming is uniform. No chaotic mixing of cases (all snake_case). Minor deduction for the split prefix.

Tool Count3/5

39 tools is on the high side for a single MCP server. While the tools are genuinely useful and cover distinct deterministic utilities plus guild trust operations, the count feels heavy. A more focused split (e.g., separate server for deterministic utilities vs. guild trust) could improve coherence.

Completeness5/5

The server covers a broad set of deterministic utilities (statistics, unit conversion, JSON, CSV, regex, date normalization) and a full trust/reputation workflow (register, search, check, risk score, escrow, attest, record, passport, verify, preflight). There are no obvious gaps: for the declared capabilities, the tool surface is comprehensive.

Resources