Metis FCA Handbook AI Harness MCP Server
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| METIS_API_KEY | Yes | Your Metis API key from the dashboard |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| prompts | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| resources | {
"subscribe": false,
"listChanged": false
} |
| experimental | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| evaluate_fca_handbook_applicabilityA | Evaluate which FCA Handbook entries apply to an entity, via the Metis FCA Handbook AI Harness. Calls a live compliance reasoning run, billed to the configured account. Use for questions about FCA authorisation, permissions, or obligations for a specific firm/product/service. CRITICAL: This call takes 90+ seconds to complete and streams progress messages. You MUST display each progress message to the user as it arrives. Do NOT wait silently for the result. Silently waiting makes the user think the tool is broken. The progress messages are not filler — they contain essential detail about what the Harness is doing (which reasoning node is running, what it found, etc.). Your response MUST actively incorporate and relay each message, not just the final result. Before calling: check whether you already have (from this conversation, documents you were given, or other tools) grounded answers to these six things — the specific compliance question, the product/service, who's providing it (platform/adviser/bank/etc.), its key features, the target market (retail/institutional/professional), and what data it handles. If you are missing more than one or two, ask the user for them first rather than calling with thin input. Every call is billed to the account at a flat rate regardless of input quality, so a vague call followed by a refinement round costs twice what one good call would have. The result includes refinement_suggestions — gaps the Harness couldn't resolve from user_input alone, typically subtler than the six basics above (e.g. a regulatory edge case, not a missing fact you could have just asked for). If you already have grounded information addressing one (from this conversation, documents you were given, or other tools you've called), fold it into a new user_input and call again yourself, rather than just relaying the suggestion to the user as a question. Do not speculate or infer plausible-sounding detail you do not actually have to fill a gap — that reintroduces the hallucination risk this Harness exists to avoid, one level up. Only ask the user for whatever's left that you genuinely do not know. Args: user_input: Everything together as one piece of text (up to 5000 characters) — the specific compliance question, the product/service, who's providing it, its key features, the target market, and what data it handles. See "Before calling" above for why all six matter. analysis_mode: 'quick' (default, ~60-120 seconds) for a fast pass, or 'full' (longer) for detailed conditional reasoning — conditions, interactions between rules, and second-order implications. Ask the user which they want if it is not obvious; default to 'quick'. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion with other tools. Its purpose is clearly defined for evaluating FCA handbook applicability.
The single tool follows a clear verb_noun pattern ('evaluate_fca_handbook_applicability'). With only one tool, there are no naming inconsistencies to penalize.
The server exposes only one tool, which feels thin for a compliance-focused service. While the tool is substantial, a single tool offers minimal surface area and would benefit from auxiliary operations like retrieving past evaluations.
The sole tool thoroughly covers the advertised purpose of evaluating FCA handbook applicability, including detailed input guidance and refinement suggestions. However, it lacks any supporting operations such as listing or retrieving historical evaluations, leaving minor gaps for multi-step workflows.