Skip to main content
Glama

Fast Pre-Action Audit

dcl_evaluate_fast

Run a low-cost pre-action audit on an agent's response, checking for forbidden phrases to decide whether to commit. Returns a verdict and reason for the block.

Instructions

FAST Pre-Action Audit ($0.01). Runs the response through the server's "default" policy: a substring check against 3 forbidden phrases ("ignore previous instructions", "jailbreak", "bypass safety") with a 0.7 minimum-confidence threshold. Each forbidden match found costs 0.4 confidence; if confidence falls below 0.7, or any match is found, the verdict is NO_COMMIT and reason lists which phrase triggered it. Otherwise COMMIT. Use this as the default low-cost first-pass gate before a risky agent action; switch to dcl_evaluate_strict for a broader, higher-bar check, or to dcl_evaluate_jailbreak / dcl_evaluate_safety / dcl_evaluate_quality for a narrower, single-topic check instead of the general-purpose default policy.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agent_idYesIdentifier of the agent that produced the response.
responseYesThe agent or LLM response text to audit.
payment_idNoOptional payment identifier returned by a previous call when payment is required

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonYesHuman-readable explanation of why the verdict was reached.
tx_hashYesHash of this record in the tamper-evident audit chain.
verdictYesCOMMIT if the response passed policy checks, otherwise NO_COMMIT.
seal_textYesHuman-readable Leibniz Layer verification seal.
timestampYesUnix timestamp when this record was sealed.
confidenceYesConfidence score of the verdict, from 0.0 to 1.0.
drift_modeYesCurrent drift status: NORMAL, WARNING, ESCALATION, or BLOCK.
input_hashYesHash of the evaluated response (raw content is never stored).
verify_urlYesPublic URL to independently verify this seal.
chain_indexYesSequential index of this record in the audit chain.
drift_scoreYesZ-score measuring deviation of the recent commit rate from baseline.
policy_versionYesVersion of the policy that was applied.
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses behavioral details far beyond annotations: $0.01 cost, exact substring phrases, 0.7 confidence threshold, 0.4 confidence penalty, NO_COMMIT/COMMIT verdict logic, and reason field behavior. Annotations provide no safety hints, so the description carries the burden and does so thoroughly.

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?

Three sentences: cost + policy, algorithm mechanics, usage guidance. Dense and front-loaded with the most critical information ($0.01) first. No filler or repetition.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. The description covers cost, policy details, threshold behavior, verdict logic, and use-case alternatives, making it complete for a simple evaluation tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds policy context but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's existing descriptions for response, agent_id, and payment_id.

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 states a specific verb (runs through audit) and resource (server's default policy), with exact forbidden phrases and threshold. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by naming alternatives like dcl_evaluate_strict and dcl_evaluate_jailbreak.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: use as default low-cost first-pass gate before risky actions; switch to strict for broader check or to jailbreak/safety/quality for narrower single-topic checks. This provides when/when-not with named alternatives.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Fronesis-Labs/dcl-webhook'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server