gate
Server Details
Deterministic gate for AI agents: ALLOW/DENY a step before it runs, sealed to a verifiable receipt.
- 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.
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.6/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct roles: evaluate_step controls step execution (ALLOW/DENY) while verify_receipt checks receipt integrity. No overlap in purpose.
Both tools use a consistent verb_noun pattern: evaluate_step and verify_receipt. Same style and grammatical structure.
With only 2 tools, the server is minimal but covers the core functionality (step evaluation and receipt verification) for a deterministic gate. Slightly thin but not unreasonable.
The tools cover step evaluation and verification, but the domain likely requires additional functionality like sequence management or key handling, which are absent. Notable gap for a full lifecycle.
Available Tools
2 toolsevaluate_stepAInspect
Ask the AgenticRail gate to ALLOW or DENY a single step of an agent sequence BEFORE it runs. The gate is deterministic (same state+request → same verdict) and enforces step order, replay protection (nonce), timestamp freshness, and sealing. A denied step must not be executed. Every decision is sealed into an Ed25519-signed, hash-chained receipt. Returns the decision (ALLOW/DENY/HALT), any reason codes, and receipt metadata. Use the demo key by sending no Authorization header (sequence IDs are auto-prefixed 'demo-'), or send Authorization: Bearer .
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| step | Yes | The step being attempted, e.g. 'intake' or 'review_and_sign'. Must appear in step_order (for custom sequences) and must equal `function`. | |
| nonce | No | Optional unique-per-step UUID for replay protection. Generated automatically if omitted. | |
| action | No | Optional human-readable label for the action. | |
| inputs | No | Optional free-form inputs recorded with the decision. | |
| function | No | Defaults to `step`. The rule step === function always holds. | |
| step_order | No | The full ordered list of step names for a CUSTOM sequence. Send it on every call. Omit only if using AgenticRail's built-in MSMD spine. | |
| action_type | Yes | The action class for this step, e.g. CHECK_STATE, SELECT_NEXT_STEP, RECORD_RESULT, PAUSE_CYCLE. Must be permitted for the step. | |
| sequence_id | Yes | Stable identifier for this run of the sequence. Reuse it across every step of the same sequence. Demo callers get a 'demo-' prefix. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It comprehensively explains key behaviors: determinism, enforcement of step order, replay protection via nonce, timestamp freshness, sealing into signed receipts, and return of decision, reason codes, and receipt metadata. There is no contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, cohesive paragraph of five sentences. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by key behaviors and authentication options. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, achieving high conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, behavior, authentication, and return structure (decision, reason codes, receipt metadata). It could be more specific about the receipt metadata format, but overall it is fairly complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between parameters (e.g., step must equal function, step_order for custom sequences) and providing context like 'nonce is optional' and the role of sequence_id. This extra context justifies a score of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to ask a gate to ALLOW or DENY a single step before it runs. It specifies the resource ('AgenticRail gate') and action ('ask to ALLOW or DENY'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool verify_receipt which deals with post-execution receipts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides guidance on when to use the tool (before a step runs) and how to authenticate (demo key vs. bearer token). It explains constraints like determinism, step order, replay protection, and the consequence of a denied step. However, it could be more explicit about when to use this tool versus the sibling verify_receipt, though the context implies the distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_receiptAInspect
Fetch the verification report for an AgenticRail sequence and report whether its receipt chain is intact. Demo- sequences need no key; other sequences need Authorization: Bearer . Returns the verification_status (VERIFIED_INTACT / CHAIN_BROKEN / …) plus the per-receipt signature, chain-hash, and independent-archive checks. This is the same evidence a third party can verify offline against the published Ed25519 keys — no need to trust AgenticRail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sequence_id | Yes | The sequence to verify. Use a 'demo-' sequence for keyless verification. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, but description clarifies read-only nature (verification) and return fields. Discloses that result can be verified offline, reducing trust concerns. Does not mention rate limits or auth details beyond key.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise (3 sentences) with clear front-loading of purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, auth condition, return details, trustlessness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given single param, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage conditions, return values, and context. Adequate for effective tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter 'sequence_id' with 100% schema coverage. Description adds useful context about demo- sequences for keyless verification, enriching the schema description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'verification report', clearly stating it checks receipt chain integrity. Distinct from sibling 'evaluate_step' which likely evaluates steps, not receipts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
States when to use: to verify receipts. Provides condition for key usage (demo sequences need no key). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
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
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!