Skip to main content
Glama

AgentAegis

by io.github.astafford8488

vet_endpoint

Read-onlyIdempotent

Composite trust verdict (PROCEED/CAUTION/BLOCK) for an endpoint an agent is about to call or pay — combines TLS/cert health, DNS hygiene, threat-intel reputation, and domain age into one decision with reasons. Prefer this over running ssl_tls_audit + dns_security_check + threat_intel_lookup separately: it costs less than the sum and returns a decision rather than three reports to reconcile. Costs $3 per call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endpointYesThe endpoint to vet — a full URL (https://api.example.com/pay) or a bare domain (example.com).
previous_scan_idNoOptional. A prior scan_id (from agent_history) to record as this call's parent — builds a traversable chained-workflow lineage retrievable via agent_scan_get. Must be one of your own scans; ignored otherwise. Does not change this tool's analysis.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description discloses a $3 per-call cost and explains that the tool aggregates multiple checks into a single decision with reasons. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Two sentences deliver purpose, alternatives, rationale, and cost without redundancy. Information is front-loaded with the verdict type and use case.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does, what inputs it accepts, and its cost. It lacks explicit detail on the exact return format (e.g., JSON structure of reasons), but the core functionality is well covered.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema already covers both parameters with detailed descriptions (endpoint accepts URL or domain; previous_scan_id is an optional lineage parent). The tool description adds only minor context (endpoint being called or paid), so it doesn't significantly enhance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool produces a composite trust verdict (PROCEED/CAUTION/BLOCK) for an endpoint, combining multiple security checks. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming them and positioning this as a consolidated alternative.

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 instructs to prefer this tool over running ssl_tls_audit, dns_security_check, and threat_intel_lookup separately, citing lower cost and a decision-oriented output. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names alternatives.

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

All AgentAegis 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

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions that disambiguate overlaps (e.g., dns_security_check vs email_security_audit, ssl_tls_audit vs vet_endpoint). A few compliance lifecycle tools (compliance_framework_check, control_gap_analysis, audit_report_generate) could be confused, but descriptions clarify their sequencing.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use lowercase snake_case, but the verb/noun order varies (e.g., access_review vs agent_history vs cve_lookup). The pattern is readable and predictable enough, with minor inconsistency in whether the resource or action comes first.

Tool Count3/5

28 tools is on the heavy side, exceeding the 25-tool threshold for 'too many' in the calibration. However, the broad security/compliance domain justifies the count, and each tool covers a distinct aspect, though some consolidation (e.g., email_security_audit vs dns_security_check) could reduce redundancy.

Completeness5/5

The toolset covers the full security assessment lifecycle: identity/access review, vulnerability discovery and prioritization, compliance frameworks and gap analysis, evidence collection, policy generation, incident triage, and specialized scans (code, secrets, network, web app, MCP/skill supply chain). No obvious critical gaps for the stated purpose.

Resources