A
licenseNot graded
qualityD
maintenanceProvides cryptographic governance receipts for AI agents, enabling pre-execution evaluation and signed verdicts (EXECUTE/BLOCK/REVIEW/SHADOW) with offline-verifiable audit trails.
MIT
Vizier
Server Details
Deterministic authorization for one proposed AI agent action, returned with a signed receipt.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Available Tools
1 toolvizier_verify_actionVerify Agent ActionCRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Evaluate whether an AI agent should be allowed to perform a proposed action.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent | Yes | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| context | Yes | ||
| authority | Yes | ||
| principal | Yes |
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description ('Evaluate') aligns with these hints but adds no additional behavioral context such as return value shape, error conditions, or side effects. The baseline of 3 applies because the description is consistent with annotations but not informative beyond them.
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?
A single sentence conveys the core purpose without any filler. It is extremely concise and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (five required nested objects) and the lack of an output schema, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain the evaluation logic, what constitutes a positive or negative result, or how the parameters relate. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly based solely on the provided text.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides zero explanation of the five required parameters (agent, principal, action, authority, context). The parameter names and nested structure are self-descriptive to some degree, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving an agent without guidance on how to fill these fields correctly.
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 a specific verb ('Evaluate') and resource ('whether an AI agent should be allowed to perform a proposed action'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It does not need sibling differentiation since no siblings exist, but it lacks a bit of specificity about what 'allowed' means in terms of the evaluation output.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, though there are no siblings listed. The description implies it is used for pre-action permission checks but does not state explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must infer when to call it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
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
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Human-in-the-loop approval for agent actions, with verifiable action-bound receipts.
Issue signed receipts for AI agent actions; verify any receipt offline - free, no account.
Policy gate and signed trust receipts for autonomous agent actions.
Independent effect verification and signed receipts for consequential AI agent actions.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceProvides tools to evaluate an AI agent's step before execution, returning signed ALLOW/DENY receipts, and to verify receipt chain integrity.
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables verification of AI agent identity, authority, and integrity at transaction time, returning signed verdicts for allow, step-up, review, or block.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceIssue and verify signed receipts for agent actions, enabling durable, independently checkable proof of policy decisions. Supports offline verification via get_keyset and verify_receipt tools without an account.0Inno Setup
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or misselection. The tool's purpose is unique and clearly defined by its description.
Naming Consistency5/5
The single tool name follows a clear verb_noun pattern (verify_action) with a consistent server prefix (vizier_), making it easily interpretable. Consistency is trivially maintained with one tool.
Tool Count3/5
A single tool is borderline for the apparent scope of an action verification service. While focused, the server might benefit from additional supporting tools (e.g., policy listing or decision history), making the count feel slightly thin.
Completeness4/5
The tool covers the core operation of evaluating an action, which may be sufficient for narrow use cases. However, auxiliary capabilities like explaining decisions or managing policies are missing, leaving minor gaps.