bies-guardian
Server Details
Deterministic sealed verdicts on public claims and startup ideas (0-LLM claim-safety guardian).
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.5/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct stage: public claim verdict, business idea rehearsal, and re-evaluation with new evidence. No overlap in purpose, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: claim_safety_verdict, idea_rehearsal, rejudge_claims. The naming is predictable and clear.
Three tools cover the core workflow of pre-publication checks and re-evaluation. While the count is low, the scope is narrow and each tool serves a necessary role, so it is appropriate.
The set covers initial verdicts for public claims and ideas, plus re-evaluation. Missing features like historical queries or batch processing, but the domain is intentionally stateless and sealed, so gaps are minor.
Available Tools
3 toolsclaim_safety_verdictClaim-safety verdict (BIES ATS)ARead-onlyInspect
Deterministic, sealed pre-publication verdict on a PUBLIC claim (marketing copy, product page, ad headline). Returns per-claim verdict (PASS / CONDITIONAL_PASS / STOP), severity, and a reproducible replay_hash. A 0-LLM rules engine grounded in KR 표시광고법 / US FTC claim categories — NOT legal advice, NOT market proof or launch approval. Call this before a public claim ships.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| copy | Yes | The exact public claim text you intend to publish. | |
| lang | No | Language of the claim. Default ko. | |
| market | No | Regulatory jurisdiction. Default follows lang (ko→KR, en→US). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes well beyond annotations: describes determinism, sealed nature, rules engine (0-LLM), regulatory grounding (KR/US law), and return fields (verdict, severity, replay_hash). No contradiction with readOnlyHint=true or openWorldHint=false.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add critical caveats. No fluff or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately summarizes return fields and explains the tool's limitations. It could optionally detail the verdict values or severity scale, but is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by clarifying that 'copy' expects exact public claim text, and that 'market' defaults based on 'lang'. This extra context improves semantic understanding beyond the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: a 'deterministic, sealed pre-publication verdict on a PUBLIC claim', with examples like marketing copy and ad headlines. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (idea_rehearsal, rejudge_claims) by focusing on pre-publication verdicts and legal compliance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to 'Call this before a public claim ships' and specifies what it is NOT (legal advice, market proof). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, the context implies it's for final pre-publication checks rather than rehearsal or rejudging.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
idea_rehearsalStartup idea rehearsal (BIES R-FARM)ARead-onlyInspect
Deterministic decision-rehearsal verdict on a founder's BUSINESS IDEA (not a public claim). Returns a graded verdict (Conditional GO / Clear one critical gate / Confirm the headwind / Verify the basics / Redesign the structure / Firm up the inputs / Hold·Redesign) driven by the venture's structural signals, with a reproducible seal. Classification is retrieval-grounded; the verdict and seal are reproducible. NOT market proof, NOT investment advice. Use to pressure-test an idea before committing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| idea | Yes | The business idea in the founder's own words — what you sell, to whom. | |
| lang | No | Language. Default ko. | |
| market | No | Market. Default follows lang (ko→KR, en→US). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining that the verdict is deterministic, retrieval-grounded, and reproducible. It also explicitly states that it is not market proof or investment advice. There is no contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=true). The description discloses behavioral traits such as reproducibility and grounding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: stating the function and output, explaining reproducibility, and providing usage caveats and a call to action. No unnecessary words or repetition. Extremely concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters (all with schema descriptions) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the output format (graded verdict with seal), the nature of the verdict (deterministic, retrieval-grounded), and the intended use case. It distinguishes the tool from siblings. For a relatively straightforward tool, this is complete enough, though it could mention whether the output includes any additional fields.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add much. The description restates the purpose of the 'idea' parameter but does not add new meaning beyond the schema's description. For 'lang' and 'market' enums, the schema already includes defaults. Therefore, the description provides minimal added value for parameter semantics, earning a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: providing a deterministic decision-rehearsal verdict on a business idea. It differentiates from the sibling tools (claim_safety_verdict, rejudge_claims) by specifying 'not a public claim' and listing the exact graded verdict options. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use: 'Use to pressure-test an idea before committing.' It also notes what the tool is not (market proof, investment advice), providing implicit guidance on when not to use. While it doesn't name specific alternatives, the sibling tool names provide context. This is clear but could be more explicit about exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
rejudge_claimsRe-judge claims with evidence (BIES ATS)ARead-onlyInspect
Re-judge a prior claim-safety verdict against new EVIDENCE. Pass the 'artifact' returned by claim_safety_verdict plus 'observations' (what happened). The top-level verdict NEVER changes on evidence (conservative by design); what moves is 4 axes — now-sayable lines (behind your owner-gate), permanently issuer-only claims, claims still short on evidence, and new risks. Deterministic, sealed, stateless (nothing stored).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language. Default ko. | |
| artifact | Yes | The full artifact object returned by claim_safety_verdict (the prior verdict being re-judged). | |
| observations | Yes | Evidence events. Each: { outcome: 'paid_yes'|'written_pilot'|'observed_metric'|'rejection', targets: [{ ref_kind: 'claim_id'|'evidence_id', ref: '<id from the artifact>' }], rejection_reason_ref? }. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), the description adds critical behavioral details: 'Deterministic, sealed, stateless (nothing stored)', 'conservative by design' (top-level verdict never changes), and explains what moves (4 axes). This goes well beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, with the first sentence stating the purpose and the second providing constraints and behavior. No wasted words; information is front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 no output schema, the description covers input semantics, behavioral constraints, and deterministic nature. It could mention the return format (axes updates), but the explanation of what moves (4 axes) partially compensates. Overall, fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining the origin of 'artifact' (returned by claim_safety_verdict) and the nature of 'observations' (evidence events). It does not repeat the schema but provides context that aids understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Re-judge a prior claim-safety verdict against new EVIDENCE.' It specifies the verb (re-judge) and the resource (claim-safety verdict), and distinguishes it from siblings by referencing the prior verdict and new evidence.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use the tool (with new evidence) and what behavior to expect (e.g., top-level verdict never changes). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!