credence

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.2.5
Disambiguation4/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose, though some overlap exists between constraint listing tools (credence_constraints, credence_session_summary, credence_audit). Descriptions clarify their different focuses, reducing ambiguity.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools follow a 'credence_' prefix with descriptive lowercase_underscore names. Most are verb_noun (e.g., credence_register, credence_verify) or noun phrases (e.g., credence_project_status). Slight inconsistency in verb forms but overall pattern is consistent.
Tool Count4/5
17 tools is on the higher side but appropriate for the complex domain of epistemic tracking. Each tool addresses a specific need, and the count is justified by the breadth of operations (register, verify, scan, gate, memory, audit, etc.).
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of constraint management: registration, verification, scanning, gating, memory persistence, and auditing. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no single constraint deletion or update), but core workflows are well-covered.
Average 4.1/5 across 17 of 17 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on May 6, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns specific fields, which is helpful. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires permissions. The name suggests a summary, but behavioral details are missing.
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?
The description is two sentences, perfectly front-loaded with the purpose ('Brief of unverified constraints for a session.') followed by return details and purpose. Every sentence adds value with no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (not fully shown, but context indicates it exists), the description does not need to explain return values in detail. It covers the key points for a low-complexity tool, but could mention that the tool is read-only or define 'unverified constraints' for clarity.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema descriptions. It does not clarify parameter usage or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it provides a brief of unverified constraints for a session and lists the return fields (action_required, unverified_count, summary list). It distinguishes itself from siblings like credence_constraints or credence_verify by focusing on a summary, but does not explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: 'so the model can decide whether to snapshot or prompt the user to verify.' It gives a hint about when to use (before making decisions), but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool 'shows all unverified constraints' but does not disclose whether it is read-only, has performance implications, or requires specific permissions. Lacks behavioral context beyond the basic output.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence provides a clear summary ('epistemic health dashboard'), second sentence details scope. Front-loaded and efficient.
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?
Tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so description need not explain return values. It sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and scope. No additional context is necessary for correct invocation.
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% with parameter 'project_id' described as 'Project identifier.' The description reinforces that the project is the container for snapshotted constraints but adds no new semantic detail about format, constraints, or valid values. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
Description clearly states verb ('shows'), resource ('all unverified constraints'), and scope ('project-wide', 'snapshotted to this project'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the context of snapshots via credence_memory_snapshot, providing a specific purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies use for checking unverified constraints in a project context but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like credence_scan or credence_verify. No when-not-to-use or sibling differentiation beyond mentioning the snapshot relation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the blocking and synonym-expansion mechanism, but does not disclose what happens when a call is blocked (error or other response), authentication requirements, or side effects. More detail on behavior beyond the stated mechanism would improve transparency.
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?
The description is concise with 4 sentences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Pre-execution epistemic gate'), each sentence adds value, and there is no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema (not shown) but the description does not explain the return behavior (e.g., what the agent receives when a call is blocked vs allowed). It also does not address practical details like idempotency or error conditions. Given the gate's critical role, more completeness is needed.
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% for 3 parameters. The description does not elaborate on parameter formats or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so it adds marginal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 is a 'pre-execution epistemic gate' that 'block[s] irreversible tool calls that embed unverified constraint values'. It specifies the verb (block) and resource (irreversible tool calls), and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like credence_scan or credence_verify.
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?
The description explicitly says 'Call BEFORE write_file, execute_code, send_request, deploy, or any tool that would embed a user-stated value into code or infrastructure.' This provides clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the positive guidance is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the prerequisite (10+ sessions) and the return structure (status, threshold, markers list). There is no mention of side effects, but as a read-only analytic tool, this is adequate.
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?
The description is extremely concise with three sentences: purpose, condition, and return format. No unnecessary words, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns'), the description is well-rounded. It covers the data requirement and output fields, leaving little ambiguity for a simple info-gathering tool.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, no parameters means baseline 4. The description does not need to add parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it provides marker statistics showing reliability vs noise based on FCR outcomes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like credence_scan and credence_session_summary by focusing on marker health analytics, though it does not explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when there are at least 10 sessions of accumulated data, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like credence_bandit_status or credence_self_probe.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists unverified constraints, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any potential side effects, error conditions, or constraints on usage (e.g., session must exist). The output schema exists but is not described here, so the description is minimally transparent.
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?
The description is extremely concise at two sentences, with the core action front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the primary use case and when to use it, though it could briefly mention the output structure (e.g., what fields a constraint has) to aid understanding.
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?
There is only one parameter (session_id), and its schema already provides a description ('Session identifier.'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema description coverage.
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's function: 'List all unverified constraints for a session.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like credence_verify or credence_audit, which have different purposes.
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?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use before writing code that may embed user-stated values, or at session end to audit what still needs confirmation.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or recommend alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior by mentioning injection of unverified constraints, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or idempotency.
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?
Two focused sentences front-load the purpose and usage, with zero extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and the specific use case, the description adequately covers when and why to call, though it could expand on what 'unverified constraints' entail.
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 the description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mainly repeating the required parameters without deeper semantics.
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 it loads project memories into a new session at startup, explicitly distinguishing it from sibling tools like credence_memory_snapshot by specifying 'injects all previously unverified constraints'.
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?
Explicitly directs to call 'at the START of a new session', providing clear context for use, but does not mention when not to use it or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a write operation ('persist') and provides lifecycle context, but does not detail side effects (e.g., overwrite behavior) or failure modes.
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?
Two efficient sentences: first defines the action, second gives precise timing and links to the sibling tool. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with complete schema and output schema present, the description adequately covers its role in the session lifecycle. Could mention idempotency or safety, but not necessary.
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 is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which are already clear.
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?
Clearly states it persists unverified constraints as project memory, and differentiates from its sibling 'credence_memory_recall' which retrieves this memory.
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?
Explicitly says 'Call at the END of a session' and explains the subsequent recall, providing clear usage context. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond the sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behaviors: two annotation tiers (stale/unverified), their sources, and scope (code blocks and prose). It does not mention output format, but output schema is present, so this is sufficient.
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?
The description is concise, uses bullets for tiers, and front-loads the purpose. Each sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 params, output schema, no annotations), the description adequately explains the scanning behavior and tiers. It could mention the output structure but the schema fills this gap. Overall complete for the context.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides (session_id, output_text, current_turn).
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 scans model output for numeric literals matching registered constraints, with a specific verb-resource combination ('scan model output') and distinguishes it from sibling tools (e.g., verify, register).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for scanning output against constraints and defines two annotation tiers, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., credence_verify), nor provides exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: the constraint is excluded from Truth Buffer injection and Consistency Enforcer enforcement, and an audit trail is recorded. It does not mention permissions or reversibility, but these are less critical for a verification action.
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?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose, consequences, and audit. Every sentence adds value with no fluff. Structure is front-loaded with the primary action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema and the specific nature of the tool, the description covers the main purpose and side effects adequately. It could mention what happens if the constraint doesn't exist or if there are errors, but overall it's sufficient.
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% with adequate descriptions for each parameter. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. No improvements needed.
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 action ('Mark a registered constraint as verified') and the resource ('constraint'). It also specifies the confirmed value. The tool's role is unique among siblings (e.g., 'credence_register' creates constraints, 'credence_autoverify' presumably automates verification).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used after registering a constraint and when manual verification is needed, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives like 'credence_autoverify' or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It indicates a destructive action (clearing constraints) but lacks details on side effects, reversibility, or prerequisites.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then usage context. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description fully covers purpose and usage, leaving no critical gaps.
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% and the parameter 'session_id' is already described. The description adds no additional semantic value 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?
The description clearly states the action ('Clear all constraints') and the resource ('for a session'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like credence_constraints which likely manage constraints rather than reset them.
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?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (after a verification pass or starting fresh), but does not mention when not to use it or point to specific alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains that ghost constraints are unverified vendor claims and that the detector flags them, revealing the tool's behavior. However, with no annotations, it could additionally mention any side effects or requirements.
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 concise sentences front-load the action and provide essential context without waste.
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 and the tool has a narrow, well-defined purpose, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
The schema covers the parameter fully ('Session to scan'), and the description provides context about the scan's purpose but adds no new semantic details about the parameter beyond what the schema already offers.
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 'Scan a session for ghost constraints' and explains what ghost constraints are, distinguishing this specialized scan from siblings like 'credence_scan'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'credence_scan' or other sibling tools, leaving the agent without explicit guidance on selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the output format but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or requires special permissions. It implies safety by being an audit, but could be more explicit.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the tool's primary function, and the second provides usage context. Front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and the parameter schema with 100% coverage, the description provides sufficient context for a query tool. With many sibling tools, the description clearly differentiates its purpose. However, it could briefly mention that it is read-only to enhance completeness.
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% with the single parameter 'session_id' described as 'The session to audit.' The description does not add further detail about the parameter beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 returns a per-session epistemic timeline with all constraints in chronological order and certainty trajectory. It specifies the resource (session constraints) and the action (audit), distinguishing it from siblings like credence_scan or credence_verify.
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 provides usage guidance: 'Use to answer "what have we tracked this session?" or "what's still open?" before starting an implementation phase.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently explains that the tool extracts numeric claims, detects contradictions, and optionally verifies against registry constraints. This gives a clear behavioral model without unexplained side effects.
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?
The description is concise with two short paragraphs. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides additional detail. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no nested objects, output schema present), the description sufficiently covers purpose and behavior. Minor omission: it doesn't address what happens if texts have no numeric claims, but overall it's complete.
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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds context for each parameter: identifying text_a as 'prior agent response' and text_b as 'new agent response,' and explaining session_id's optional verification role. This enhances understanding 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'compare' and the resource 'two texts,' with a specific goal of detecting numeric contradictions. This differentiates it from sibling tools like credence_verify or credence_scan, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions optional behavior with session_id but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like credence_verify or credence_scan. It lacks exclusions or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states that registered values are 'UNVERIFIED until explicitly confirmed,' which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention other behaviors like return value, side effects, or required permissions, leaving some gaps.
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?
Two sentences: first defines the action, second provides usage guidelines. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (3 params, no enums, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral note. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to use this tool and what to expect. Minor omission: no mention of error cases or handling of duplicate registrations, but not critical.
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?
The schema describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by recommending 'exact quote preferred' for the content parameter, which is actionable guidance beyond the schema. It does not add much for session_id or source_type, but the schema already defines them well.
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 registers an uncertain constraint in the epistemic registry, distinguishing it from siblings like `credence_verify` and `credence_autoverify` which handle verification. The verb 'register' and resource 'epistemic registry' are specific and unambiguous.
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?
The description explicitly says to use when the user states something uncertain and provides concrete examples (unconfirmed vendor claim, assumption, 'I think' statement, number from quick search). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context implies it should not be used for certain facts, and siblings cover other cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the threshold condition (requires 100 sessions for learning) and the return fields. As a read-only status tool, no destructive hints are needed. No annotations existed to contradict, but some details like permissions or rate limits are omitted.
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?
The description is concise, using three lines to cover purpose, conditions, and returns. It is front-loaded with the key concept and uses a clear structured list for outputs.
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 no parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's function, conditions, and return format. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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?
No parameters exist, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info. It effectively explains the tool's behavior without parameter details.
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 it returns 'adaptive compression threshold status' using Thompson sampling bandit, with specific conditions (learned vs static defaults). It distinguishes from siblings like 'credence_scan' or 'credence_verify' by focusing on compression threshold status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose implies usage for checking bandit status, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'credence_project_status' or 'credence_memory_snapshot'. No conditions for when not to use are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses zero external calls, no model judgment, and unverified registration. It could mention if any state is persisted or side effects, but the transparency is strong for a simple registration tool.
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?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Despite having an output schema (not mentioned), the description covers purpose, behavior, usage context, and next steps (credence_verify). It is complete for the tool's complexity.
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?
The input schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions (code and session_id). The description adds no new semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 applies.
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 extracts domain-relevant values from generated code and registers them as unverified, with no API calls or model judgment. It distinguishes itself from the sibling credence_verify by specifying that verification is a separate step.
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?
The description defines the use case: after generating code with any coding agent, extract values and register them unverified. It implies when to use by contrasting with zero API calls and zero model judgment, but does not explicitly list when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes the detection logic (matching based on token overlap) and disclosure of zero API calls. No contradictions.
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?
The description is concise with three short paragraphs. The main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.
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 that an output schema exists (as per context signals), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers matching logic and usage context. For a tool with 2 parameters, it is complete.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'text' is the user/assistant message and 'session_id' is the session whose constraints are checked, beyond the schema descriptions.
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's action: scanning text for natural-language verification signals and auto-verifying matching constraints. It provides specific examples of confirmation phrases, making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like 'credence_verify'.
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?
The description explains when to use the tool (e.g., when a user says confirmation phrases) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, the examples and context imply appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![credence-ai MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Lakshmi-Chakradhar-Vijayarao/credence-ai/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Lakshmi-Chakradhar-Vijayarao/credence-ai)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![credence-ai MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Lakshmi-Chakradhar-Vijayarao/credence-ai/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Lakshmi-Chakradhar-Vijayarao/credence-ai)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/Lakshmi-Chakradhar-Vijayarao/credence-ai'

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