Skip to main content
Glama

phi-longevity-prism

by io.github.Philongevity

Full PRISM report (paid — $4.99 USDC via x402)

full_prism_report
Read-only

PAID TOOL ($4.99 USDC on base via the x402 protocol). Everything analyze_biomarkers does, plus: multi-track compare/contrast analysis (up to 4 condition tracks), a panel-based Phi Score estimate with per-pillar breakdown, partner options, and a rendered report (markdown) to deliver to your owner. Call WITHOUT payment to receive x402 payment terms; pay; retry with the base64 payment payload in payment. 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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ageNoAge in years of the synthetic persona.
paymentNoBase64-encoded x402 payment payload. Omit on first call to receive payment terms.
biomarkersYesMap of biomarker name -> numeric value, e.g. { "Hemoglobin A1c": 5.4 }. SYNTHETIC ONLY.
biologicalSexNoBiological sex of the synthetic persona.
compareTracksNoTracks to analyze for compare/contrast. Default: primary + general_wellness.
conditionFocusNoPrimary condition track. Default general_wellness.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description fully explains the payment flow, statelessness, and data restrictions. Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) are consistent and the description adds context about the two-call payment protocol. No contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single dense paragraph. It front-loads the paid nature and lists features, but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points). No superfluous sentences.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

While the description covers purpose, payment, and limitations, it lacks details on the output format (e.g., structure of the markdown report, what the Phi score breakdown includes). No output schema exists, so the description should compensate more.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the payment parameter's two-call behavioral pattern and defaults for compareTracks and conditionFocus, going beyond what the schema provides.

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 it is a paid report generation tool that extends analyze_biomarkers with multi-track comparison, Phi score estimate, partner options, and a rendered markdown report. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a superset.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains the payment process (call without payment, then retry with payload) and limits usage to research/education with synthetic or de-identified data. It does not explicitly contrast with all siblings but implies when to use this over analyze_biomarkers.

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

All phi-longevity-prism 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly distinct: reference/methodology functions, a fixed sample, a quick local check, and the paid full report. analyze_biomarkers and full_prism_report overlap, but the descriptions explicitly differentiate the free tiered recommendations from the paid multi-track report.

Naming Consistency3/5

analyze_biomarkers, get_methodology, and list_supported_biomarkers follow a clear verb_noun pattern, but quick_check and full_prism_report are noun-phrase style, and sample_prism_report is ambiguous between noun and verb. The names are readable but the convention is mixed.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is a well-scoped size for this server's purpose: reference data, methodology, quick screening, full analysis, paid report, and a sample output. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full user journey: learn about biomarkers, understand methodology, preview a sample report, run a quick check, get detailed recommendations, and purchase the full report. No obvious dead ends or critical missing operations for the stated PRISM domain.

Resources