Skip to main content
Glama

VerifiMind PEAS - RefleXion Trinity

by io.github.creator35lwb-web

run_full_trinity

Run complete X → Z → CS Trinity validation with Chain of Thought.

This tool orchestrates all three agents in sequence:

  1. X Intelligent analyzes innovation and strategy

  2. Z Guardian reviews ethics (sees X's reasoning)

  3. CS Security validates security (sees X and Z reasoning)

  4. Results are synthesized into a unified assessment

Each agent sees the reasoning of previous agents, enabling true collaborative analysis with full transparency.

BYOK (v0.4.5): Pass llm_provider/api_key for all agents, or use per-agent overrides (x_provider/x_api_key, z_provider/z_api_key, cs_provider/cs_api_key). Per-agent params take priority over global. Keys are ephemeral (never stored) and garbage collected after the call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
detailNoReasoning verbosity (v0.5.44) — "standard" (default) returns the auditable `reasoning` block (per-step reasoning, ethics scoring breakdown + framework citations, Socratic questions, threat assessment) alongside the scores; "full" adds per-step evidence and the heaviest structured fields (12-dimension matrix, 6-stage record, MACP assessment); "summary" omits the reasoning block for the smallest payload. The block is additive — existing response fields are unchanged at every level.standard
api_keyNoOptional global API key for all agents (ephemeral, never stored)
contextNoOptional additional context or background
user_uuidNo
x_api_keyNoOptional API key override for X agent only
z_api_keyNoOptional API key override for Z agent only
cs_api_keyNoOptional API key override for CS agent only
x_providerNoOptional provider override for X agent only
z_providerNoOptional provider override for Z agent only
cs_providerNoOptional provider override for CS agent only
concept_nameYesShort name or title of the concept
llm_providerNoOptional global LLM provider for all agents
save_to_historyNoWhether to save the full result to validation history (default: False). The store is shared and instance-local, retains at most the 20 newest opt-in results, evicts oldest entries on every read/write, and clears when the instance is replaced. It has no fixed time-retention guarantee. Leave False for private or sensitive concepts. If user_uuid is supplied separately, pseudonymous validation metadata may still be written to UUID-keyed Firestore history (see Privacy v2.5).
concept_descriptionYesDetailed description of the concept

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description supplies useful behavioral context: agents run sequentially, each sees previous reasoning, results are synthesized, and BYOK keys are ephemeral, never stored, and garbage collected. It could also disclose history/save side effects, but the included traits go well beyond a bare statement.

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 well-organized with a numbered pipeline and a compact BYOK paragraph. It is slightly repetitive—'Each agent sees the reasoning of previous agents' restates the bullet details—but every major point is scannable and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (14 params, 3-agent orchestration) and a rich schema, the description covers the essential flow and authentication model. It does not mention the detail or save_to_history behaviors, but those are already covered in the schema, and the output schema exists, so the description is adequate.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 93%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining the global vs per-agent BYOK parameters and that per-agent overrides take priority over global, which is not stated in the schema definitions.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Run complete X → Z → CS Trinity validation with Chain of Thought') and then enumerates the three-agent sequence. This clearly differentiates it from sibling consult_agent_x/z/cs tools, which handle individual agents.

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 explicitly says this tool runs the complete pipeline and orchestrates all three agents in sequence, making it clear this is the full-validation path. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear for selection among the sibling tools.

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

All VerifiMind PEAS - RefleXion Trinity 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear, distinct purposes: the three consult_agent_* tools are differentiated by agent specialty (CS, X, Z), and the prompt template tools each serve a unique operation. Minor overlap exists between export_prompt_template and get_prompt_template, and between register_custom_template and import_template_from_url, but descriptions clarify the differences.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names predominantly follow a verb_noun pattern (export_, get_, import_, list_, register_, run_, consult_, coordination_handoff_create/read). A minor deviation is coordination_team_status, which is noun_noun, but overall the pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count5/5

With 13 tools, the set is well-scoped for a server that combines three-agent consultation, an orchestration command, a coordination subsystem, and prompt template management. Each tool earns its place, though three coordination tools are currently disabled, which slightly reduces their practical value.

Completeness4/5

The core validation workflow is complete: individual agent consultations plus run_full_trinity cover the full X→Z→CS sequence. The prompt template subsystem lacks update and delete operations, which is a minor gap, but the main purpose of the server is well served. The coordination tools are present but disabled, limiting that aspect of the surface.

Resources