A
licenseA
qualityB
maintenanceValidate AI claims against live data: check endpoints, count competitors, and test hypotheses. Includes free and paid tools via x402.
16
MIT
Agentic Diaries Audit
Server Details
Checks what a support agent knew but did not say against its policies. Free tier, no login.
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 · MCP 2025-11-25
- URL
- Repository
- kandikandikandi/behavioral-audit-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- Behavioral Audit MCP
TDQS
A4.7/5.0
Scored across 1 tool
Disambiguation5/5
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The single tool has a clear and unique purpose.
Naming Consistency5/5
There is only one tool, so naming is trivially consistent. The name 'disclosure_check' follows a clear verb_noun pattern and is descriptive.
Tool Count4/5
One tool is slightly on the low side, but it's appropriate for the focused audit purpose of checking disclosure gaps. No additional tools are needed for the server's stated function.
Completeness5/5
The single tool fully covers the server's purpose of checking disclosure gaps in support replies. There are no missing operations within this narrow domain.
Available Tools
1 tooldisclosure_checkDisclosure CheckAInspect
Check a draft support reply for disclosure gaps before sending it. Given what the customer said and the reply you are about to send, it flags any should-know policy the customer's situation made relevant that the draft failed to proactively surface (the knew-but-did-not-say gap). Returns a verdict (pass or gap); on a gap, each missed policy and the line that should have been surfaced. It detects and suggests, it does not rewrite.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| draft_reply | Yes | The reply you are about to send. | |
| customer_message | Yes | What the customer said, verbatim. |
TDQS
A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it flags missed policies, returns a verdict (pass/gap), detects and suggests but does not rewrite. No contradictions.
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 concise, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return value (verdict and details) adequately. It is complete.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and description adds meaning by mapping 'customer_message' and 'draft_reply' to the task. It provides context beyond the schema.
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 verb 'check', the resource 'draft support reply', and the context 'disclosure gaps before sending'. It precisely defines the tool's role.
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 implies usage before sending a reply, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. However, the context is clear enough.
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.
1 tool update
- First observed
disclosure_check
Related MCP Connectors
Check whether a real-world fact can be verified before an agent acts on it. Free, no auth.
Keep AI answers fresh with free source previews, scheduled monitoring, evidence history, and alerts.
See how AI assistants answer about your brand
Free buyer-side outcome verification and provider comparison for supplied agent receipts.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceHelps individuals analyze privacy policies and verify if a website's technical behavior matches its stated privacy practices.MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceVerified AI free-tier limits, quota comparisons, commercial-use verdicts and zero-cost workflows. Every entry carries a human-checked verification date and is re-checked by a daily link patrol.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI agents to check whether AI assistants recommend a brand and audit a site's AI-agent readiness, providing visibility scores and specific gaps.MIT
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.