Skip to main content
Glama

Vibes-Coded Agent Security and Commerce Tools

by io.github.doteyeso-ops

vc_drift_guard

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare current agent state to a trusted baseline and flag drifted fields.

Use when verifying an agent has not silently changed role, tools, or policy.
Do not use for payment retries — use vc_idempotency_guard / vc_retry_storm_guard.

Auth: X-Vibes-Key or x402 (~$0.02). Advisory only.
Returns JSON listing drifted fields and severity, or payment_required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsNoOptional field paths to watch; omit to compare broadly.
currentYesCurrent agent state or config object.
baselineYesTrusted baseline or prior trajectory.
payment_signatureNoOptional x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE if not using X-Vibes-Key.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds valuable context beyond annotations: authentication requirements (X-Vibes-Key or x402), cost (~$0.02), advisory-only nature, and the return format (JSON with drifted fields and severity, or payment_required). No contradictions 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is three sentences with zero fluff. Purpose is front-loaded, usage guidance is immediate, and auth/return details are compactly appended. Every sentence earns its place.

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 nested objects and an existing output schema, the description covers all essential invocation aspects: purpose, usage boundaries, auth, cost, advisory nature, and return format. It doesn't elaborate on edge cases like null fields, but the schema handles those, and the output schema covers detailed return structure.

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%—all four parameters (fields, current, baseline, payment_signature) have meaningful descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail or syntax guidance, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate per the rubric when the schema carries the burden.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Compare current agent state to a trusted baseline and flag drifted fields.' It clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes itself from payment-related siblings by explicitly naming vc_idempotency_guard and vc_retry_storm_guard as alternatives for different use cases.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when verifying an agent has not silently changed role, tools, or policy.' It also gives a clear exclusion: 'Do not use for payment retries — use vc_idempotency_guard / vc_retry_storm_guard.' This leaves no ambiguity about appropriate invocation.

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

All Vibes-Coded Agent Security and Commerce Tools 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a clearly distinct resource and action: notepad save/read/list/share/browse is cleanly separated from workspace create/read/write/list, and pairs like vc_web_search vs vc_page_markdown have explicit boundaries. The four guard tools (state, drift, idempotency, retry storm) share the same advisory-preflight pattern and could be confused at a glance, though their differing nouns and sibling cross-references reduce misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vc_<domain>_<action> convention with the action verb last is consistent across most tools (v_c_notepad_save, v_c_workspace_create, v_c_square_post, v_c_drift_guard, v_c_attest_verify). Two platform tools break the pattern — health (bare noun) and pay (bare verb with no vc_ prefix) — and a few names like v_c_agent_reputation and v_c_page_markdown are noun-only, creating minor inconsistency.

Tool Count3/5

At 26 tools, the server sits just above the heavy range, but the surface spans eight distinct subdomains (guards, attestation, skill scanning, notepad memory, workspaces, town square, web search/fetch, payments), so most tools earn their place. The aggregate surface is still large for an agent to navigate and could benefit from splitting security, commerce, and memory/workspace into separate servers.

Completeness3/5

Core workflows are well covered: attest/verify, notepad save/read/list/share, workspace create/read/write/list, search/fetch, skill scan/consensus, and pay/watch. Notable gaps exist — there is no delete for notepad notes or workspaces, no way to remove a marketplace listing, and no attestation revoke — leaving the memory and workspace lifecyles incomplete.

Resources