Skip to main content
Glama

Server Details

Diagnose AI workflows for failure, security, and handoff risks — RED/AMBER/GREEN per node.

Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL

Glama MCP Gateway

Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.

MCP client
Glama
MCP server

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.

100% free. Your data is private.
Tool DescriptionsA

Average 4.2/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The single tool's purpose is clearly defined.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool name 'diagnose_workflow' follows a clear verb_noun pattern. Consistency is not an issue with only one tool.

Tool Count2/5

Having only one tool for a workflow diagnostic server is too thin. The server likely needs additional tools for configuration, result management, or comparison to be useful.

Completeness2/5

The server provides only a single diagnostic operation. Missing tools for listing previous diagnoses, managing workflow definitions, or comparing results, leaving significant gaps for typical workflows.

Available Tools

1 tool
diagnose_workflowDiagnose an AI workflow for failure / security / handoff risksAInspect

FDE Agent pre-mortem: analyze an agentic AI workflow and return per-node RED/AMBER/GREEN risk across failure, security, and handoff axes, grounded in an incident ontology. Provide a built-in sample ('legal' or 'loan') or inline Markdown/BPMN node inventory.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bpmnNoInline Markdown node inventory / BPMN text to diagnose
sampleNoBuilt-in sample workflow to diagnose
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the output format and input types but does not mention permissions, side effects, or limitations. The description adds value but is not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence captures the core purpose and output, the second explains input options. Well front-loaded and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description explains the return format and input options adequately for a diagnostic tool with moderate complexity. However, it could be more explicit about input priority, error handling, or example outputs, especially since there is no output schema.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description clarifies that the inputs are alternatives ('or'), which adds useful semantic guidance beyond the schema's optional fields.

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 uses a specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('agentic AI workflow') and clearly states the output format (per-node RED/AMBER/GREEN risk across three axes). It also mentions the incident ontology and input options, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool is for diagnosing workflows but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. Since there are no sibling tools, the lack of explicit exclusions is acceptable, but more context could be added.

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

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.

Resources