Document Integrity Validator
Server Details
AI reasoning checks any document against known international standards before your agent acts on it.
- Status
- Healthy
- 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 4.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct scopes: single-document internal consistency vs. multi-document cross-checking. Descriptions explicitly warn against misuse, eliminating ambiguity.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (check_document, check_document_package), maintaining uniform naming conventions.
With only two tools, the server is minimal but appropriately scoped for document validation. The tools avoid redundancy and cover the primary use cases without unnecessary bloat.
The server fully covers the validation domain: internal consistency for single documents and cross-document consistency for packages. No obvious gaps for its stated purpose of document integrity checking.
Available Tools
2 toolscheck_documentCheck Document IntegrityARead-onlyInspect
Validates a document for internal consistency and completeness against the applicable international standard for its type. Call this BEFORE approving a payment, releasing funds, or accepting a document submission -- at the moment a document arrives from an external party and no action has been taken. Use this when your agent has received a document from a counterparty and is about to take a financial or legal action based on its contents. Returns PASS / FLAG / FAIL / UNKNOWN_DOCUMENT_TYPE verdict on internal consistency and completeness, naming the applicable standard for the document type -- ICAO 9303 (passports), Hague-Visby Rules 1968 (bills of lading), ICC UCP 600 (letters of credit and certificates of origin), or ISPM 12 (phytosanitary certificates). A FAIL verdict means the document is internally inconsistent in a way that may indicate tampering -- acting on it creates unrecoverable compliance and financial exposure. Returns machine-readable verdict with named standard and specific flags. When you have 2-20 related documents (e.g. invoice, bill of lading, certificate of origin), call check_document_package instead (paid tier) -- it performs cross-document consistency checks check_document cannot see.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_text | No | Extracted text content from the document. Provide this or document_image or both. | |
| document_image | No | Base64 encoded document image. Accepts raw base64 or a data URL (data:image/jpeg;base64,...). Supported types: JPEG, PNG, GIF, WEBP. | |
| document_type_hint | No | What the calling agent believes the document type is, e.g. "bill_of_lading", "passport", "certificate_of_origin". Optional -- the validator identifies the type independently. | |
| issuing_jurisdiction | No | Country or issuing body, e.g. "Singapore", "ICAO", "United Kingdom". Narrows jurisdiction-specific standard selection. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| flags | Yes | |
| reason | Yes | |
| verdict | Yes | |
| checked_at | Yes | |
| confidence | Yes | |
| _disclaimer | Yes | |
| hold_reason | No | |
| retry_after | No | |
| verdict_ttl | Yes | |
| agent_action | Yes | |
| analysis_type | Yes | |
| _upgrade_notice | No | |
| calls_remaining | Yes | |
| escalation_path | No | |
| assessed_against | Yes | Named standard, e.g. "ICAO Document 9303" -- null for UNKNOWN_DOCUMENT_TYPE |
| data_source_status | Yes | |
| known_issuing_standard | Yes | |
| document_type_identified | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so safety is clear. Description adds behavioral context: returns verdicts (PASS/FLAG/FAIL/UNKNOWN_DOCUMENT_TYPE), explains FAIL indicates tampering and compliance exposure, and mentions machine-readable format. No contradictions with annotations.
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?
Description is detailed but well-structured: opens with core purpose, then usage timing, verdict explanation, sibling comparison. Each sentence adds value, but length could be slightly reduced. Front-loaded with key action and context.
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 complexity (multiple standards, verdict types, sibling tool), description is thorough. Explains return values (verdicts), failure implications, and when to use alternative. Output schema exists, so return format covered. Covers all necessary aspects for an AI agent to invoke correctly.
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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds meaning: clarifies document_text and document_image are alternatives (provide one or both), explains document_type_hint is optional and the validator identifies independently, and describes issuing_jurisdiction as narrowing standard selection. Adds value beyond schema.
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?
Clearly states verb 'Validates' and resource 'document for internal consistency and completeness'. Specifies applicable international standards (ICAO 9303, Hague-Visby, ICC UCP 600, ISPM 12). Differentiates from sibling check_document_package by naming when to use each.
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?
Explicitly states when to call ('BEFORE approving a payment, releasing funds, or accepting a document submission') and context ('when your agent has received a document from a counterparty and is about to take a financial or legal action'). Also tells when to use alternative: for 2-20 documents, call check_document_package.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_document_packageCheck Document Package IntegrityARead-onlyInspect
Validates a package of 2-20 related trade finance documents for cross-document consistency. Call this BEFORE approving any multi-document trade finance transaction or cross-border shipment -- at the moment a set of 2-20 related documents arrives from an external party and funds have not been released. Use this when your agent has received a full trade finance package — such as invoice, bill of lading, and certificate of origin together — and must verify all documents are consistent with each other before releasing funds. Returns PASS/FLAG/FAIL verdict per document with mismatch details. Cross-checks all documents for consistency across numeric values, party names, reference numbers, dates, and commodity descriptions. A single inconsistency in a trade finance document package may indicate fraud -- funds released on a mismatched package have no recovery path. Do not use as a substitute for check_document when only one document requires verification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| documents | Yes | Array of 2 to 20 related documents to assess individually and cross-check against each other. Each document must have a unique label. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| verdict | Yes | |
| documents | Yes | |
| checked_at | Yes | |
| confidence | Yes | |
| _disclaimer | Yes | |
| verdict_ttl | Yes | |
| agent_action | Yes | |
| analysis_type | Yes | |
| calls_remaining | Yes | |
| package_verdict | Yes | |
| data_source_status | Yes | |
| package_agent_action | Yes | |
| cross_document_conflicts | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it returns PASS/FLAG/FAIL verdict per document with mismatch details, cross-checks consistency across numeric values, party names, etc., and warns that inconsistency may indicate fraud with unrecoverable funds. There is no contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, etc.).
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 concise and well-structured. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose. Subsequent sentences provide context, usage guidance, return information, and warnings without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, and the description is appropriately 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 the tool's complexity (validating multi-document packages) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: when to use, what it validates, what it returns, risks, and exclusions. It is complete and leaves no critical gaps for an AI agent to misuse the 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 has 100% description coverage for the 'documents' parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the array size constraints (2-20), that each document must have a unique label, and the purpose of the label in cross-document conflict reporting, thus providing additional context.
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 clearly states the tool validates a package of 2-20 related trade finance documents for cross-document consistency. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool check_document by explicitly stating it should not be used when only one document requires verification.
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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this BEFORE approving any multi-document trade finance transaction or cross-border shipment -- at the moment a set of 2-20 related documents arrives from an external party and funds have not been released.' It also includes when-not-to-use guidance by warning against using it as a substitute for check_document for single documents.
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!