Skip to main content
Glama

Agent Broker

by io.github.basilalshukaili

check_compliance

Read-onlyIdempotent

Free, instant pre-flight for the compliance gate. Runs the SAME TCPA / GDPR / CASL / CAN-SPAM / 10DLC gate that send_message and call_business run — but in preview mode, so NO message is sent and NO state changes. Tells you whether a (recipient, channel, message_type, content) send would be permitted BEFORE you pay for it, and if not, names the exact rule and how to remediate. Use it to de-risk a paid send the same way check_booking_link de-risks a paid booking.

EXAMPLE USER QUERIES THAT MATCH THIS TOOL: user: "Is it legal to text this US number a 20%-off promo?" -> call check_compliance({"recipient_id": "+14045550200", "content": "20% off this week only!", "channel": "sms", "message_type": "marketing", "country_code": "US"}) user: "Before you email the dentist, make sure it's allowed" -> call check_compliance({"recipient_id": "office@dentist.example", "content": "Do you accept Cigna? Following up on my request.", "message_type": "follow_up"}) -> then send_message({"recipient": {"id_type": "email", "id_value": "office@dentist.example"}, "message_type": "follow_up", "content": {"body": "Do you accept Cigna? Following up on my request."}})

WHEN TO USE: Call this the moment before send_message or call_business when there is any chance the send is regulated — anything tagged marketing, any SMS to a US number (10DLC), any message to an EU/UK (GDPR) or Canadian (CASL) recipient, or any content you are unsure about. It is free and sub-100ms, so run it as a guard: if legal=true, proceed to send_message with confidence; if legal=false, fix the cited blocker instead of burning a paid, rejected send. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not treat a legal=true as a permanent license — the gate re-runs at send time, so a fresh opt-out between preview and send still blocks. Do not use it to check two-party voice recording consent (that is evaluated at call time in the voice adapter, not here). It is not a substitute for send_message; it never delivers anything. COST: free - no key required LATENCY: ~15ms

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
channelNoDelivery channel. Omit to auto-infer sms/email from recipient_id; set 'voice' explicitly.
contentYesThe actual message body you intend to send. The gate classifies the real text, so a meaningful preview needs the real content.
state_codeNoUS state code (e.g. 'CA') for state-specific rules.
country_codeNoISO 3166-1 alpha-2 (e.g. 'US', 'DE', 'CA'). Auto-inferred from phone if omitted; drives which jurisdiction rules apply.
message_typeNoIntent tag: transactional, marketing, reminder, follow_up, notification. 'marketing' triggers the consent checks. Defaults to transactional.transactional
recipient_idYesPhone in E.164 (e.g. '+14045550100') or email address the message would go to.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar for the description is lower; it avoids contradiction and reinforces the safety profile with 'NO message is sent and NO state changes.' It adds non-trivial context beyond annotations: free/no-key cost, ~15ms latency, and the critical caveat that the gate re-runs at send time so a legal=true is not a permanent license.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and labeled sections (WHEN TO USE / WHEN NOT TO USE / COST / LATENCY) make it scannable. It is longer than average, but each block earns its place for a compliance tool that needs clear usage boundaries; the example queries add real value despite some verbosity.

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 6-parameter compliance tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, side-effect profile, usage boundaries, and cost/latency. The one gap is that the exact return shape is only hinted at ('if legal=true') rather than specified, but the flow examples compensate for an absent output schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters; baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by noting marketing triggers consent checks and that country_code drives jurisdiction, but these largely restate schema text rather than adding genuinely new meaning.

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 a specific verb+resource ('pre-flight for the compliance gate') and precisely scopes what it does: runs the same gate as send_message/call_business in preview mode with no side effects, reporting whether a send would be permitted and naming the rule. It is easily distinguished from siblings because it explicitly names the gate it mirrors and the sibling (check_booking_link) it parallels.

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?

Dedicated WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections give explicit conditions (marketing-tagged sends, SMS to US numbers, EU/UK/Canadian recipients) and exclusions (not for two-party voice recording consent, not a permanent license, not a send_message substitute). It also routes to alternatives and chains a call to send_message with a concrete example.

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

All Agent Broker 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

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose with detailed descriptions and explicit WHEN TO USE / WHEN NOT TO USE guidance. Potential overlaps like send_message vs. send_transactional_confirmation are well-differentiated by idempotency and use case, and compliance tools (check_compliance, screen_sanctions, map_trade_restriction) operate on different scopes without ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use lowercase snake_case and follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (call_business, check_quota, find_business, send_message, verify_company_record). Even less standard verbs like lookup, map, and mint follow the same structural convention, and there are no mixed casing styles or inconsistent naming patterns.

Tool Count4/5

With 23 tools, this is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the breadth of the server's purpose—covering communication, scheduling, compliance, trade screening, and operational utilities—justifies the count. Each tool addresses a distinct capability area, and the set is not bloated with redundant or trivial functions.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of the broker's domain: business discovery, booking (check, import, schedule), communication (send, receive, read), compliance (pre-flight checks, sanctions, trade restrictions, company verification), and operational support (quota, health, cost preview, key minting, async status/outcome). There are no obvious dead ends or missing critical operations for the stated purpose.

Resources