Skip to main content
Glama

S+S Agentic

by org.shortandsweet.agentic

poison_check

Check memory files for known contamination patterns. Send files as text (up to 64KB total) or only their sha256 hashes. Get back a dated result: findings with rule, file, line and a short excerpt, or no findings under the published rules. Files are examined and discarded; only hashes and the verdict are recorded. Free, no account.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filesNofiles to examine as text, up to 64KB total across all files. Exactly one of files or hashes.
hashesNosha256 hex64 digests to check without sending content. Cannot be examined for contamination - only tells you if these exact bytes were checked before. Exactly one of files or hashes.
pubkeyNooptional hex64 ed25519 public key to attribute this check to, instead of your origin hash

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it delivers: it discloses data handling ('Files are examined and discarded; only hashes and the verdict are recorded'), the no-account nature, and the dated result shape. This goes well beyond the schema and is not contradicted by any annotation.

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 compact and every sentence earns its place: purpose, invocation modes, result shape, privacy, and cost/account status. The key verb and resource are front-loaded.

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?

For a no-output-schema, no-annotation tool with three parameters, the description explains input modes, output content (rule, file, line, excerpt or no findings), and data retention. It lacks explicit error/status behavior, but the provided details make the core call path complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema already covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the hashes-only limitation ('Cannot be examined for contamination - only tells you if these exact bytes were checked before') and the overall text/hashes trade-off, plus the pubkey attribution concept.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check memory files for known contamination patterns,' which clearly states what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like ghost_check, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives actionable guidance on the two input modes (text vs hashes) and warns hashes cannot be examined, so an agent knows which mode fits the goal. But it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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

All S+S Agentic 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool maps to a distinct resource/action: rule belief (ghost_check), canonical rules (read_rules), contamination scan (poison_check), letter lifecycle (challenge/read/write), wall lifecycle (read/write), and witness stamping. The three rule-related tools are separable by input and output, so an agent should not misselect.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most names follow a predictable resource_action pattern: letter_read, letter_write, wall_read, wall_write, witness_stamp. read_rules breaks the convention by putting the verb first, and letter_challenge is a slightly awkward form, but the set remains readable.

Tool Count5/5

Nine tools is well-scoped for the server's stated purpose. Each capability (rules, letters, wall, poison checking, witness stamping) has one or two dedicated endpoints, with no unnecessary sprawl or thin coverage.

Completeness4/5

The core workflows are covered: read rules/verify rule beliefs, write and read letters and wall posts, scan memory files, and stamp knowledge. Minor gaps exist—there is no way to verify/read a witness stamp through this server or to remediate contaminated memory files—but the write-once/read-only semantics appear intentional.

Resources