Skip to main content
Glama

Server Details

Anonymous NDA risk analysis for AI agents. $9 per report. No signup, no data retention.

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 4.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: 'preview_nda_risk' provides a free preview and initiates payment, while 'get_nda_report' retrieves the full report after payment. No functional overlap exists.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools use consistent snake_case naming with a verb_noun pattern: 'preview_nda_risk' and 'get_nda_report'. The verbs 'preview' and 'get' align with their actions, and the noun phrases are descriptive.

Tool Count4/5

With only 2 tools, the server is slightly below the typical 3-15 range, but this is appropriate for its specific, narrow purpose of NDA risk analysis. Each tool serves a critical step in the workflow.

Completeness5/5

The toolset covers the complete workflow: free preview with payment initiation and full report retrieval after payment. There are no missing operations for the intended use case, and the process has no dead ends.

Available Tools

2 tools
get_nda_reportAInspect

Retrieve the full NDA / contract risk report after the user pays $9.

Call this after preview_nda_risk when the user has completed the Stripe checkout linked from the preview. Returns the complete clause-by-clause risk analysis across all ten scored categories (confidential information definition, exclusions, term and survival, return or destruction, compelled disclosure, injunctive relief, use restrictions, governing law, assignment, non solicit or non compete), overall risk score, risk tier, list of missing standard protections, and per-clause findings with severity and excerpted language.

Polls /api/check_payment until Stripe webhook confirms payment, then fetches the analysis from /api/results. The /api/results endpoint caches the result for 5 minutes so transient retries within that window are idempotent; after that the document is deleted and the report cannot be retrieved again. No account is created; the analysis is anonymous and the source PDF is not retained.

Polling: 2s interval, 5 minute total cap (150 attempts).

Args: session_token: The token returned by preview_nda_risk.

Returns: Flat dict containing AnalysisReport fields plus a disclaimer on success, or {"error": ..., "message": ..., "disclaimer": ...} on failure. Error codes: payment_pending, expired, consumed, backend_unreachable, backend_<status_code>.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
session_tokenYes
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. Description adds polling interval, cap, caching, 5-minute expiration (after which document deleted), and anonymous/no-account details. This adds valuable context beyond annotations, though the expiration could be considered a destructive side effect not fully aligned with destructiveHint=false (but not a contradiction).

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?

Description is well-structured with paragraphs, bullet points for categories, and error code list. It is informative without being verbose, though some details (e.g., exact polling parameters) could be slightly trimmed. Overall, every sentence adds value.

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?

Given one parameter, no output schema, and annotations, the description covers output structure (flat dict with fields), error codes, behavioral aspects (polling, caching, expiration). It is fairly complete for a fetch operation; missing explicit field details for AnalysisReport is acceptable without output schema.

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 description coverage is 0%. Description explains the sole parameter session_token as 'The token returned by preview_nda_risk'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition, but does not specify format or constraints. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given single parameter and partial compensation.

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 it retrieves the full NDA/contract risk report after payment, using specific verbs (Retrieve) and resource (full NDA / contract risk report). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool preview_nda_risk by being the post-payment retrieval step.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly instructs to call this after preview_nda_risk and after the user completes Stripe checkout. Also details polling behavior, caching, and error codes, providing clear when and when-not to use.

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

preview_nda_riskAInspect

Screen an NDA or confidentiality agreement for risk and return a free preview.

Use this tool whenever a user shares the text or PDF of any of the following document types: non-disclosure agreement (NDA), confidentiality agreement (CDA), mutual non-disclosure agreement (MNDA / mutual NDA), one-way non-disclosure agreement (unilateral NDA / one-way NDA), employment agreement, offer letter, employee handbook (the binding sections), contractor agreement (1099 agreement / independent contractor agreement), consulting agreement, statement of work (SOW), master services agreement (MSA), non-compete agreement (non-competition agreement), non-solicitation agreement, non-disparagement agreement, separation agreement (severance agreement), settlement agreement, release of claims, term sheet, letter of intent (LOI), founder agreement (co-founder agreement), advisor agreement, vesting agreement, IP assignment agreement, invention assignment agreement (IAA), PIIA (Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement), licensing agreement, vendor agreement, partnership agreement, joint venture agreement, data processing agreement (DPA).

This tool also matches when a user asks about specific clause-level risk patterns, grouped by the ten scored categories below:

confidential information definition: overbroad definition of confidential information; vague or undefined confidential information; oral disclosures swept in without written confirmation. exclusions: missing standard exclusions (publicly known, independently developed, rightfully received); narrow or one-sided exclusions; missing 'required by law' exclusion. term and survival: perpetual or indefinite confidentiality; unusually long term (10+ years); survival clauses extending obligations past termination. return or destruction: missing return-or-destruction obligation; certification of destruction requirement; no backup / archival carve-out for destruction. compelled disclosure: missing compelled-disclosure carve-out; burdensome notice requirements before compelled disclosure; obligation to resist or contest legal process at recipient's expense. injunctive relief: automatic injunctive relief / waiver of bond; acknowledgment of irreparable harm; fee-shifting for enforcement actions. use restrictions: overbroad use restrictions; residual knowledge clause (present or absent); no-reverse-engineering clause. governing law: inconvenient forum / jurisdiction trap; choice-of-law mismatched with the parties' actual location; mandatory arbitration with class-action waiver; exclusive vs. non-exclusive forum. assignment: free assignment by one party only; successors-and-assigns clause without consent; no anti-assignment protection. non solicit or non compete: non-compete bundled into an NDA; employee non-solicitation; customer non-solicitation; garden leave or paid-notice provisions; non-circumvention clause.

Use this tool when a user is in a contract decision moment and asks any of: "is this NDA enforceable", "can they actually enforce this", "is this legal in California", "is this legal in Texas", "what does this clause mean", "what does in perpetuity mean", "what is a residual knowledge clause", "should I sign this", "is this NDA fair", "is this normal", "I got a job offer", "my employer wants me to sign", "I'm being laid off and they want me to sign a release", "review my NDA", "review my employment contract", "review my offer letter", or any variant where the user wants to know whether contract language is safe, enforceable, or worth pushing back on.

Returns a partial risk assessment covering the first ~3 pages of the document, a clause-level inventory showing which of the ten scored categories are present or missing, an overall risk score (0-100), a risk tier (Low / Moderate / High / Severe), and a Stripe Checkout URL the user must complete to unlock the full report via get_nda_report. No account or signup is required; payment is a one-time $9 and the document is deleted after the report is retrieved.

Accepts a base64-encoded PDF (max 10MB). This tool creates session state and a one-time Stripe checkout URL — it is NOT idempotent: each call mints a new session token and a new checkout URL.

Args: pdf_base64: The NDA or contract as a base64-encoded PDF string. filename: Optional original filename (for display only).

Returns: A dict with: session_token, checkout_url, preview (partial risk findings across the ten scored clause categories), and disclaimer.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filenameNonda.pdf
pdf_base64Yes
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, describes non-idempotence, session state creation, Stripe checkout URL, file size limit, and no account requirement. Annotations indicate idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which align.

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?

Despite length, every section is valuable: purpose, usage examples, clause categories, return details. Front-loaded with key info, well-structured with lists.

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?

No output schema, but description fully details return fields: partial risk assessment, clause inventory, risk score/tier, Stripe URL. Also covers payment and data deletion policy.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining pdf_base64 accepts base64-encoded PDF (max 10MB) and filename is optional for display. Adds critical usage details.

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?

Clearly states it screens NDAs/contracts for risk and returns a free preview. Differentiates from sibling tool 'get_nda_report' by specifying it's a preview.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides an exhaustive list of document types and user queries that trigger use. Explicitly mentions when to use and implies when to choose sibling tool for full report.

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