Cyphrex

set_behavior_profile

Set behavior profile for an agent

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`agentId`	Yes
`profile`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed3 schema fields changedAug 17, 2026

changedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -falseNew value: +true
```

removedInput schema / properties / apiKey

Removed value: -{
-  "minLength": 1,
-  "type": "string"
-}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "agentId",
-  "profile",
-  "apiKey"
-]New value: +[
+  "agentId",
+  "profile"
+]

First observedApr 30, 2026

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, but it only states the operation. It doesn't reveal whether the profile is overwritten, merged, validated, or what happens if the agentId doesn't exist, nor does it describe any return value.

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 one-sentence description is appropriately brief and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it could have used an additional sentence to provide usage context without becoming bloated.

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 the low parameter documentation, lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. It fails to explain return values, side effects, or validation behavior, which are essential for a mutation tool with an open-ended profile object.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the 'agentId' or 'profile' parameters. It doesn't explain what a valid profile looks like or how the parameters interact, so the agent has insufficient information to correctly populate the arbitrary profile object.

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 uses the specific verb 'set' and identifies the resource as 'behavior profile for an agent,' clearly indicating the operation. While it distinguishes from sibling tools like register_agent or verify_agent, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or context, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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

All Cyphrex tools Inspect

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

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.

Resources

Need Help?