phi-longevity-prism
Server Details
Analyze biomarker panels with an MD-led clinical engine. Guideline-cited. Synthetic data only.
- 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
Score is being calculated. Check back soon.
Available Tools
3 toolsanalyze_biomarkersAnalyze biomarkers (synthetic)ARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Analyze a SYNTHETIC biomarker panel with Phi Longevity's PRISM engine. Returns tiered, guideline-cited recommendations. For research/education with SYNTHETIC or de-identified data only. Do NOT submit protected health information (PHI). This endpoint is stateless and does not store inputs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| age | No | Age in years of the synthetic persona (improves reference-range interpretation). | |
| biomarkers | Yes | Map of biomarker name -> numeric value, e.g. { "Hemoglobin A1c": 5.4 }. SYNTHETIC ONLY. | |
| biologicalSex | No | Biological sex of the synthetic persona (sex-specific reference ranges). | |
| conditionFocus | No | Optional condition track. Default general_wellness. | |
| include_partner_options | No | If true, include partner/product options. Default false. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| meta | No | Engine metadata for this analysis run. |
| issues | No | Flagged issues detected in the panel. |
| full_report | Yes | How the agent's owner can get a complete PRISM report. |
| recommendations | No | Tiered, guideline-cited recommendations from the PRISM engine. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds further transparency by stating the endpoint is stateless and does not store inputs, and by emphasizing the synthetic-only constraint. No contradiction 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?
Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the core function, clarifying data constraints, and noting statelessness. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.
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 (5 parameters, nested objects, output schema), the description covers purpose, constraints, and behavioral traits adequately. Minor improvement could include a brief note about the output format, but the output schema fills that gap.
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%, and all parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter-specific information beyond what is in the schema, which is acceptable per guidelines (baseline 3).
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 it analyzes a synthetic biomarker panel with the PRISM engine and returns tiered, guideline-cited recommendations. It distinguishes itself from siblings (get_methodology, list_supported_biomarkers) by being the analysis tool and includes explicit scope for synthetic/de-identified data.
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 specifies when to use (analyze synthetic biomarkers) and when not to (do not submit PHI). It also mentions research/education context. Could be improved by explicitly referencing sibling tools as alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_methodologyGet PRISM methodologyARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Summarize how the Phi Score works (5 clinical pillars + weights) and link to the full methodology.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| note | Yes | Decision-support disclaimer and synthetic-data rule. |
| source | Yes | Attribution. |
| phi_score | Yes | Plain-English summary of how the 0-100 Phi Score is computed. |
| agent_docs_url | Yes | Agent integration docs. |
| methodology_url | Yes | Full public methodology page. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context (summarize, link) consistent with annotations; no contradictions, but no additional disclosures needed.
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?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Summarize') and efficiently conveys the key information.
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?
With no parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and output for a simple informational 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?
No parameters exist, so description bears full burden of explaining purpose. It clearly states what the tool does: summarize and link to methodology.
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 summarizes the Phi Score methodology (5 clinical pillars + weights) and links to full methodology, distinguishing it from sibling tools about biomarkers.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given; usage is implied by the tool's purpose. Sibling tools are about biomarkers, but no direct guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_supported_biomarkersList supported biomarkersRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List the biomarkers PRISM scores, with units and reference ranges, grouped by clinical pillar. Reference data only — no patient data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| biomarkers | Yes | The 51-marker catalog with clinical reference ranges. |
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!