Skip to main content
Glama

biii

by io.github.philpof102-svg

till_seed_exposure

IS A RECOVERY PHRASE SITTING IN CLEARTEXT ON THIS MACHINE? Everything else here answers whether an ADDRESS is safe to pay; this answers whether the MACHINE is safe to hold a wallet, and a safe address on a compromised machine is worth nothing. "Self custody if you know how to keep your seedphrase safe" puts the whole condition in the sentence and nothing ships that checks it: an antivirus answers "do you have a known virus", which is a different question. This one is DECIDABLE rather than scored. A keyword scan drowns — abandon, able, about and absent are ordinary English and all four are BIP-39 words — but a mnemonic is a RUN of 12/15/18/21/24 consecutive words from a 2048-word list with a CHECKSUM in the last word, so a candidate is proven by arithmetic. Measured across 204 files and 1.6 MB of real prose and source: zero false confirmations. It NEVER outputs the phrase — file, line and word count only, because this output ends up in terminal buffers, logs and screenshots, and a scanner that prints the seed it found is a stealer with good intentions. Reports its own blind spots: no images, PDFs, password managers, browser storage or encrypted archives, so "nothing found" means nothing was found IN WHAT WAS READ. Read-only, no network, nothing is copied.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathsNodirectories to scan; defaults to Documents, Desktop, Downloads and the OneDrive equivalents

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description thoroughly discloses behaviors: read-only, no network, no copying, never outputs the phrase, reports blind spots, and algorithm details. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels.

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 description is a single paragraph but front-loads the key question. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for clarity.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the output format (file, line, word count), blind spots, and safety guarantees. It is complete for a scanning tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a description for 'paths' that already explains defaults. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific information, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 clearly states that the tool checks for recovery phrases in cleartext on the machine, distinguishing it from address-checking tools. However, it could be more concise and directly state the action without the rhetorical question.

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 contrasts the tool with address-focused siblings and antivirus, implying when to use it. It lacks explicit 'use this when...' wording but 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.

All biii toolsInspect
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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct, well-named purposes (vet_agent vs vet_merchant), but there is notable overlap between till_trust and till_vet_merchant (both provide trust verdicts), and till_launch_funder vs till_funder_history are closely related. The descriptions are detailed enough to differentiate, but an agent could still misselect between a few pairs.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools share the till_ prefix, but the pattern is mixed: some use verb_noun (check_invoice, create_charge, watch_wallet) while others are noun phrases (key_exposure, open_approvals, rug_powers) or bare nouns (floor, trust, roll). This is readable but not predictable, so an agent cannot reliably guess a tool name from a verb.

Tool Count2/5

At 29 tools, this server exceeds the 25+ threshold that signals an overgrown toolkit. Even with a broad domain, many tools are one-off niche scanners (till_b20_authentic, till_floor, till_meter) that inflate the surface and could be consolidated or externalized.

Completeness4/5

The toolkit covers the payment lifecycle comprehensively: create charges/invoices, check payments, verify delivery, generate receipts, rolls, and accounting exports. It also spans identity, trust, security scanning, and theft tracing. Minor gaps exist (no update/cancel for charges, no token-general vetting), but the non-custodial, read-only design makes these acceptable.

Resources