phi-guard-mcp
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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": true
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| redact_suggestA | Given a raw text snippet (a log line, a prompt, an error message), detect PHI-shaped values and return a redacted version. |
| scan_codeA | Scan a local directory of source files for sensitive identifiers (patient, diagnosis, dob, ssn, mrn) flowing into risky sinks (LLM calls, logging, analytics) before they ship. |
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 2 tools
redact_suggest operates on raw text for de-identification, while scan_code analyzes source code for risksy data flows. Their inputs, outputs, and use cases are completely distinct, so an agent should have no trouble separating them.
scan_code follows a clear verb_noun pattern, but redact_suggest is an awkward combination that is not clearly verb+object. With only two tools, the inconsistency is noticeable though both names remain understandable.
Two tools feels thin for a PHI protection server, though the pair does cover two meaningful workflows: runtime text redaction and pre-ship code scanning. It is a borderline scope rather than an obviously excessive or trivial one.
The set covers redaction suggestion and source scanning, but leavoves out supporting operations like pattern configuration, allowlisting, detailed finding management, or remediation/apply flows. These are notal gaps that agents may need to work around.