Document Integrity Validator MCP
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| TRANSPORT | No | Transport protocol (e.g., stdio or http). | stdio |
| ANTHROPIC_API_KEY | Yes | Your Anthropic API key for authentication. |
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 |
|---|---|
| check_documentA | Validates a document for internal consistency and completeness against the applicable international standard for its type. Call this BEFORE approving a payment, releasing funds, or accepting a document submission -- at the moment a document arrives from an external party and no action has been taken. Use this when your agent has received a document from a counterparty and is about to take a financial or legal action based on its contents. Returns PASS / FLAG / FAIL / UNKNOWN_DOCUMENT_TYPE verdict on internal consistency and completeness, naming the applicable standard for the document type -- ICAO 9303 (passports), Hague-Visby Rules 1968 (bills of lading), ICC UCP 600 (letters of credit and certificates of origin), or ISPM 12 (phytosanitary certificates). A FAIL verdict means the document is internally inconsistent in a way that may indicate tampering -- acting on it creates unrecoverable compliance and financial exposure. Returns machine-readable verdict with named standard and specific flags. When you have 2-20 related documents (e.g. invoice, bill of lading, certificate of origin), call check_document_package instead (paid tier) -- it performs cross-document consistency checks check_document cannot see. |
| check_document_packageA | Validates a package of 2-20 related trade finance documents for cross-document consistency. Call this BEFORE approving any multi-document trade finance transaction or cross-border shipment -- at the moment a set of 2-20 related documents arrives from an external party and funds have not been released. Use this when your agent has received a full trade finance package — such as invoice, bill of lading, and certificate of origin together — and must verify all documents are consistent with each other before releasing funds. Returns PASS/FLAG/FAIL verdict per document with mismatch details. Cross-checks all documents for consistency across numeric values, party names, reference numbers, dates, and commodity descriptions. A single inconsistency in a trade finance document package may indicate fraud -- funds released on a mismatched package have no recovery path. Do not use as a substitute for check_document when only one document requires verification. |
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
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: check_document validates a single document's internal consistency, while check_document_package validates cross-document consistency for 2-20 related documents. Their descriptions explicitly state when to use each, leaving no ambiguity about which to select.
Both tool names follow the same verb_noun pattern: 'check_document' and 'check_document_package'. The second name is a logical extension of the first, making the relationship and function predictable.
With only two tools, the server is borderline minimal, but this is appropriate for a narrow domain focused on document validation. The two tools cover the two core scenarios (single document and package), with no unnecessary bloat.
The server covers the primary validation workflows: single-document internal consistency and multi-document cross-consistency. Minor gaps exist, such as not exposing a way to list supported standards or validate against a user-specified standard, but these are not critical for the core use case.