Cloudflare Workers MCP server: llm-output-quality-monitor
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.
Average 3.1/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
The tools are mostly distinct, but consistency_check and drift_detector both involve comparing responses, and quality_validator and schema_enforcer overlap on validation. The descriptions help clarify boundaries, especially for hallucination_scorer which is clearly unique.
Most names follow a noun_noun pattern (drift_detector, hallucination_scorer, quality_validator, schema_enforcer), but consistency_check deviates by using a verb as the second element. All are snake_case, so the overall style is recognizable but not perfectly uniform.
Five tools is well within the optimal range for a focused monitoring server. Each tool addresses a distinct quality aspect without unnecessary bloat or sparsity.
The toolset covers key monitoring dimensions: single-response quality, schema validation, hallucination risk, cross-response consistency, and time-based drift. Missing semantic hallucination detection is acknowledged as a limitation, but it's a minor gap given the scope.
consistency_checkCInspectCheck consistency across multiple LLM responses
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| responses | Yes | Array of responses to compare |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are available, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states a pure analysis action without detailing output format, methodology, or resource implications. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left uninformed about what the tool returns.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero fluff. It could add a second sentence with output details without harming conciseness, but it is efficiently worded.
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?
Despite low parameter complexity, the absence of annotations and output schema places a heavy burden on the description. It fails to specify return values or interpretation of consistency, leaving a significant gap for correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 100% with the parameter 'responses' described as 'Array of responses to compare'. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Description uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('consistency across multiple LLM responses'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like drift_detector and hallucination_scorer. However, it does not specify what kind of consistency (e.g., semantic, lexical), leaving slight ambiguity.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusion cases. The description does not mention when consistency checking is preferred over drift detection, quality validation, etc.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
drift_detectorCInspectDetect quality drift between current and previous LLM responses
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| threshold | No | Drift threshold (0-1, default: 0.15) | |
| currentResponse | Yes | Current LLM response | |
| previousResponse | Yes | Previous LLM response |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a generic action ('detect') without explaining the output format, threshold semantics, side effects, or how drift is measured, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It conveys the core purpose efficiently, making it fully concise.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain return values or operational context. It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about what the tool returns or how to interpret the detection result. This gap makes the description contextually incomplete for a tool with this level of structured context.
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?
The input schema already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters with 100% coverage, earning a baseline score of 3. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already includes, though it does implicitly reference current and previous responses.
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 with a specific verb ('Detect') and resource ('quality drift between current and previous LLM responses'), making it distinct from the sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from consistency_check or quality_validator, so it misses the top score.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like consistency_check or quality_validator, nor any prerequisites or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
hallucination_scorerAInspectPattern-based heuristic risk scoring for LLM responses (0-100). Detects linguistic signals such as contradictory assertions, unsourced claims, and uncertainty markers. Not a semantic hallucination detector.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | No | Reference context for grounding | |
| response | Yes | LLM response to analyze |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: it is heuristic, pattern-based, outputs a 0-100 risk score, and detects specific linguistic signals. It also clearly states a limitation (not a semantic detector). It could mention caveats about heuristic accuracy or the role of the optional context parameter, but overall it is quite transparent.
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 with zero filler. It front-loads the core purpose and scale, then elaborates with detection signals and a clear boundary. Every sentence earns its place, making it appropriately sized 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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description provides essential context: the output range, detection methodology, and a limitation note. The schema covers the parameters adequately. It lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools, but the tool is simple (2 parameters, 1 required) and the description is otherwise complete for its complexity.
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?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage of both parameters with clear descriptions: 'response' is the text to analyze, and 'context' is the reference grounding context. The tool description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
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 with a specific verb ('risk scoring') and resource ('LLM responses'), including the 0-100 output scale. It differentiates itself from semantic hallucination detectors through an explicit negation, but does not name sibling tools like consistency_check or drift_detector for direct comparison. This is clear and scoped, but not fully distinguished from all siblings.
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 implies usage when pattern-based linguistic risk scoring is needed and explicitly excludes semantic hallucination detection, providing a when-not hint. However, it does not name alternative tools or explain when to use this over the listed siblings such as quality_validator or schema_enforcer. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
quality_validatorBInspectValidate LLM response quality based on length, format, and structure
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| response | Yes | LLM response to validate | |
| maxLength | No | Maximum response length (default: 10000) | |
| minLength | No | Minimum response length (default: 10) | |
| strictFormat | No | Enforce punctuation and capitalization |
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 what is being validated, not what the tool returns, how it signals validation failure, or whether it has side effects. It omits critical information about the output format (e.g., score, boolean, or error details).
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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and includes no filler. It efficiently conveys the core function without unnecessary detail.
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 multiple parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it does not explain return values, usage context, or edge cases. It fails to provide enough information for an agent to confidently invoke the tool and interpret the result.
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?
The input schema already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds general context but no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as how strictFormat relates to 'format' or how maxLength/minLength map to 'length'.
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 uses a specific verb 'Validate' with a clear resource 'LLM response' and specifies the scope 'length, format, and structure', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like consistency_check, drift_detector, hallucination_scorer, and schema_enforcer. This makes the core purpose 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of sibling tools, exclusions, or conditions that would trigger its use; the agent must infer from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
schema_enforcerCInspectValidate JSON response against schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| schema | Yes | JSON schema definition | |
| response | Yes | JSON response to validate |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states the validation action but does not describe what happens on success/failure, whether it returns a boolean or errors, or any side effects. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity, similar to the 'update_drive' example.
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 a single terse sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Validate'. It is concise but lacks any supplementary structure or context; while it wastes no words, it could benefit from brief usage or behavioral notes without becoming verbose.
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's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error behavior, or how this tool fits into the validation workflow. The lack of an output schema further increases the need for description to clarify outcomes.
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?
The input schema already defines both parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific information, such as how the schema object is structured or how the response string is parsed. Baseline 3 applies given high schema coverage.
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 'Validate JSON response against schema' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling validation tools by focusing on schema conformance rather than consistency, drift, hallucination, or quality. However, no further details about the validation process or return value are provided, so score 4.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention situations where schema validation is preferred, nor does it reference sibling tools or exclusions. The agent has no context for tool selection beyond the name.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!