Skip to main content
Glama

IntentFence Policy Gate

Server Details

Spend, scope, data, and approval policy gate for autonomous AI actions.

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 4/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no risk of confusion with other tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

With a single tool, naming is trivially consistent.

Tool Count4/5

One tool is appropriate for a simple policy gate, but expanding to include policy management tools could improve the server's utility.

Completeness5/5

The single tool covers the core functionality of evaluating constraints before agent calls; no obvious gaps for the stated purpose.

Available Tools

1 tool
intentfence_preflightIntentFence PreflightA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Evaluate spend, scope, data, and approval constraints before an agent tool call. Returns safe_to_proceed, needs_review, or denied.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYes
proofsNo
subjectYesAgent or principal identifier.
constraintsNo
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the key behavioral trait of returning a status result (safe_to_proceed, needs_review, denied), which is not captured in the annotations. 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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and output. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the key action.

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?

The description explains the return values, which is important since there is no output schema. However, it does not elaborate on how constraints are evaluated or how proofs are used, leaving gaps for an agent to understand full behavior.

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 only 25% (only 'subject' has a description). The tool description does not explain the meaning or usage of parameters like 'action', 'proofs', or 'constraints', leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone. For a tool with nested objects, more guidance is needed.

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 'evaluate' and the resources (spend, scope, data, approval constraints), and specifies the three possible return values (safe_to_proceed, needs_review, denied). It fully defines the tool's purpose without ambiguity.

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 phrase 'before an agent tool call' provides clear context for when to use the tool. While no exclusions or alternatives are given, the absence of sibling tools makes this guidance sufficient.

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