check_action
Run Cyphrex check on a proposed action
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| agentId | Yes |
Cyphrex
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Changed3 schema fields changed
- changed
Input schema / additionalPropertiesPrevious value: -falseNew value: +true - removed
Input schema / properties / apiKeyRemoved value: -{ - "minLength": 1, - "type": "string" -} - changed
Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[ - "agentId", - "action", - "apiKey" -]New value: +[ + "agentId", + "action" +]
- First observed
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'run a check,' implying a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify side effects, permissions, or return behavior. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full impact.
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 a single sentence, highly concise and front-loaded. However, the brevity omits critical details, making it under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and sparse parameter information, the description is not complete enough for correct invocation. The agent lacks details on expected inputs, outputs, and behavior, making it challenging to use effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema includes action and agentId with zero description coverage, and the description fails to mention these parameters at all. There is no guidance on what 'action' should contain (string vs object) or what 'agentId' represents, leaving the agent without essential parameter context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool runs a Cyphrex check on a proposed action, using a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools or explain what a Cyphrex check entails, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives like log_action or verify_agent. There are no exclusions or contextual hints, so an agent cannot determine the appropriate selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action: checking proposed actions, logging/reading audit data, proxying requests, registering/verifying agents, scanning different payload types, and setting profiles. The separation between check_action and scan_mcp_tool_result is clear from their descriptions (proposed action vs. upstream result).
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., check_action, get_audit_log, set_behavior_profile). No mixing of styles or vague verbs beyond standard operation names.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for a security-focused MCP governance server. Each tool addresses a clear need without redundancy or excessive granularity.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the core lifecycle: agent registration, verification, behavior profiling, action checking/logging, audit retrieval, proxying, and scanning. Minor gaps include no explicit agent removal or policy management tools, but these may be intentionally outside the server's scope.