Skip to main content
Glama

FLOCORE Governed MCP

by tech.flocore
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Screen for prompt injection

aegis_inspect
Idempotent

Screen a prompt or text for injection, jailbreak and exfil intent. Free, public, defensive-only: returns a risk score (0..1), the detected intents, and whether it is suspicious. No token needed, no tenant data. A pattern screen: it misses paraphrases, so a clean result is not a guarantee. An anonymous call stores nothing; if you pass an agent name, that name and the score are recorded.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesthe prompt or text to screen
agentNooptional: your agent name or a contact; if given, it is recorded with the score
referred_byNooptional: the agent id that referred you, so the referral is attributed to them

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / agent / description
      Previous value: -"optional: your agent name or a contact, to register interest and be onboarded to governed (human-gated, signed-receipt) actions"New value: +"optional: your agent name or a contact; if given, it is recorded with the score"
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / referred_by
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "optional: the agent id that referred you, so the referral is attributed to them",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the return payload (risk score 0..1, detected intents, suspicious flag), the no-token/no-tenant-data posture, the paraphrase blind spot, and precise data handling (anonymous calls store nothing; passing an agent name records the name with the score). This is exactly the retention and reliability information the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then outputs, then limitation, then data handling. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description fully compensates by enumerating the return fields and their meaning. Combined with the privacy and reliability disclosures, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning about the privacy consequence of the optional 'agent' parameter (it becomes a recorded identifier) and clarifies that omitting all identity params keeps the call anonymous. It does not elaborate on 'referred_by' beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Screen a prompt or text for injection, jailbreak and exfil intent') and immediately scopes it as free, public and defensive-only. The function is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the flocore_* account/verification siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear context for invocation (defensive screening of untrusted prompts, no token or tenant data required) and a real caveat that a pattern screen misses paraphrases so a clean result is not a guarantee. It stops short of naming alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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

All FLOCORE Governed MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources