Skip to main content
Glama

OpenWarrant — AI Text Detection

Server Details

Probability prose is AI-written, with the tells behind the score. No API key — text or URL in.

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 4.9/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no ambiguity; the tool's purpose is clearly defined and distinct.

Naming Consistency5/5

With a single tool named 'detect_ai_text', naming is trivially consistent, following a clear verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count3/5

Having just one tool feels thin for a server that references other capabilities (verify_document, verify_references) in its description, but may be acceptable for a narrowly focused detection service.

Completeness2/5

The tool only handles prose text detection and lacks the complementary tools (verify_document, verify_references) mentioned as necessary for non-prose documents and citation verification, leaving significant gaps.

Available Tools

1 tool
detect_ai_textAInspect

Estimate the PROBABILITY that a document's text was AI-GENERATED (LLM-written prose).

USE THIS WHEN someone shares prose — an essay, cover letter, article, review, application,
or report (or a link to one) — and asks: did an AI / ChatGPT write this? is this
human-written? detect AI text.

Provide the document ONE way: `text` (pasted markdown/plain prose), `url` (a public http(s)
link to a page or PDF — fetched server-side, the cheapest call), OR `bytes_b64` (a base64
PDF/file, plus `filename` for routing). Returns
`{probability, lean, tells, reasoning, applicable}`.

HONEST SCOPE: the probability is the model's CONFIDENCE, not a calibrated truth — it can
false-flag templated/coached or non-native-English writing. It works on PROSE only: for a
form/table/numeric document (payslip, statement) it returns `applicable: false` and abstains,
because AI-text detection false-positives badly there — use `verify_document` (the
authenticity engine) for those, and `verify_references` to check a doc's citations/claims.
ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNo
textNo
filenameNodocument.pdf
bytes_b64No

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription

No output parameters

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses that probability is model confidence not calibrated truth, notes false-positive risks for non-native English, and states it abstains on non-prose documents. With no annotations, description fully covers behaviors.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections, but slightly verbose. Front-loaded with key info, no wasted sentences.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description adequately covers input options, usage context, limitations, and alternatives. No gaps identified.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but description explains the three input methods (text, url, bytes_b64) with context (url is cheapest) and mentions filename. Partially describes output fields.

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 tool estimates probability of AI-generated text, specifies the document types (prose like essays, cover letters, etc.), and distinguishes from sibling tools for non-prose documents.

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 says 'USE THIS WHEN' for prose and provides clear exclusion cases (forms, tables, numeric documents) with alternatives (verify_document, verify_references).

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!

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    Bilingual (EN/ES) AI-writing detection that shows the evidence instead of a percentage: named tells with line and column, hidden-character inspection, and citation cross-checking against a document's own bibliography. Seven of its nine tools run entirely locally and never touch the network.
    10
    18
    MIT
  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    Three deterministic MCP tools that score text for AI-writing tells (em-dash density, hedge words, tricolons, boilerplate openers) and grade landing-page copy. No LLM, no network calls, no API key — same input always yields the same score. Published on the official MCP registry as io.github.parweb/ai-slop-checker.
    3
    MIT

View all MCP Servers

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.

Resources