A
licenseA
qualityA
maintenancePost-quantum, tamper-evident receipts for consequential agent actions. Provides tools for auditing, gating decisions, and egress classification with quantum-hardened security.
7
Apache 2.0
security-preflight
Server Details
Evidence-bounded static agent security checks with signed redacted receipts.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- jdhart81/viridis-agent-fleet
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- viridis-agent-fleet
Available Tools
3 toolsdescribe_agentCInspect
Describe scope, evidence boundary, inputs, and outputs.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It vaguely mentions describing scope, evidence boundary, inputs, and outputs but does not disclose any behavioral traits like read-only nature, side effects, or required permissions. At least it is not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded, and contains no waste. However, it is too vague to be effective; conciseness sacrifices clarity.
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 zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what kind of agent this is, nor does it leverage the security context hinted by sibling tools to provide meaningful usage context.
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?
There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since none exist. Mentioning 'inputs' is consistent with no inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Describe scope, evidence boundary, inputs, and outputs' states a general purpose but does not clearly identify what 'agent' refers to or distinguish this tool from sibling tools get_security_receipt and security_preflight, which are security-related.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or exclusions. The description leaves the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_security_receiptBInspect
Read a previously issued public, input-redacted receipt.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt_id | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates the operation is a read ('Read') but does not explain error handling, idempotency, or details about 'input-redacted'. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and key attributes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally complete. It lacks details on error scenarios and the exact meaning of 'input-redacted', but the core purpose is conveyed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the tool description should compensate. However, no additional meaning is added for the receipt_id parameter beyond its name and type. The parameter is self-explanatory but not elaborated.
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 clearly states the tool reads a security receipt, specifying 'public' and 'input-redacted' characteristics, which distinguishes it from sibling tools describe_agent and security_preflight.
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 vs. alternatives (describe_agent, security_preflight) or any prerequisites. The description simply states the function without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
security_preflightAInspect
Run a $1 static Security Preflight and return a signed receipt.
New x402 payer wallets may receive the fleet-wide $0.01 introductory call. No deployed endpoint is fetched or tested. Importing the receipt into an Agent Market profile is a separate, explicit action.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| policy | No | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| manifest | Yes | ||
| request_id | No | ||
| payment_ref | No | ||
| sample_inputs | No | ||
| subject_profile_sha256 | No |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is static (no endpoint testing), returns a signed receipt, and notes pricing tiers. It does not state whether the operation is read-only or if it has side effects, but for a preflight tool, the behavior is reasonably clear.
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 no fluff. The first sentence delivers the primary purpose, the second adds pricing, and the third clarifies limitations and next steps. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (7 parameters, nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main operation and pricing but omits parameter guidance. It is adequate only if the output schema explains the return value sufficiently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain any of the 7 parameters, despite 0% schema description coverage. It mentions 'static Security Preflight' but provides no detail on what 'manifest', 'policy', or other fields mean. This forces the agent to guess their purpose.
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 clearly states the action ('Run a $1 static Security Preflight') and the output ('return a signed receipt'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on running the preflight rather than describing agents (describe_agent) or retrieving existing receipts (get_security_receipt).
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 clarifies that no endpoint is tested and that importing the receipt is a separate step, providing helpful context on what the tool does and does not do. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
3 tool updates
- First observed
describe_agent - First observed
get_security_receipt - First observed
security_preflight
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
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
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
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!
Related MCP Connectors
Cryptographically anchored evidence for agents: verified run receipts, proof-gated settlement.
Policy gate and signed trust receipts for autonomous agent actions.
Tamper-evident audit log service for agent-to-agent transactions
Post-quantum, tamper-evident receipts for agent actions. Ed25519 + ML-DSA-65, offline verify.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseBqualityBmaintenanceA visual compiler and verifier for coding agents that turns rendered evidence into inspectable visual programs with tamper-evident receipts.15-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceCryptographically anchored, tamper-evident evidence receipts for AI agents — verified run receipts, existence-at-time proofs, and cited answers from an anchored public record. Remote MCP with proof-gated settlement; attests existence and integrity, never truth.-
evermint-mcpofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceTamper-evident receipts for AI agent actions. The notary layer for agent-to-agent transactions.701MIT
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: describe_agent provides context, security_preflight runs the check, get_security_receipt retrieves results. No overlap.
Naming Consistency3/5
Two tools follow verb_noun pattern (describe_agent, get_security_receipt), but security_preflight is noun_noun, introducing inconsistency.
Tool Count5/5
Three tools cover the essential operations for a focused security preflight service: describe, run, and retrieve receipt. No excess or deficiency.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface fully covers the stated purpose: describing the agent, running a static preflight, and retrieving the signed receipt. No obvious gaps.