Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Hallucination Firewall

Hallucination Firewall

by Parvathy-Raj
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_policy

Configure the firewall's verification policy by setting strictness, verifier tiers, blocking verdicts, flagged-answer action, and confidence threshold.

Instructions

Configure the firewall.

Args: strictness: lenient | balanced | strict (presets for block_on and thresholds). tiers: which verifier tiers may run: 0 exact, 1 NLI model, 2 LLM judge. block_on: verdicts that block the answer, e.g. ["contradicted", "unsupported"]. action: what to do with a flagged answer: annotate | block | rewrite. threshold: tier-1 confidence (0.5-1.0) needed to decide without the LLM judge.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "set_policy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tiersNo
actionNo
block_onNo
thresholdNo
strictnessNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what some parameters mean, but omits whether the policy is session-scoped or persistent, how omitted optional parameters are treated, whether strictness overrides explicit block_on or threshold values, and what side effects occur when policy changes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with an Args section that gives one line per parameter. There is little wasted text, though the opening sentence is vague until the Args section supplies context.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a configuration tool with five optional parameters, the description does not clarify persistence, merge/default semantics, or interaction between preset and explicit parameters, leaving important context gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for all five parameters: strictness values and presets, tier numbers, block_on examples, action values, and the threshold range. It still does not explain null/default behavior or provide an exhaustive list of block_on verdicts.

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 states a specific verb and resource, "Configure the firewall," and the Args section clarifies that this is verifier policy configuration. It does not explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings such as reset_session, but the parameter list makes the purpose reasonably clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of how this relates to siblings like reset_session or the verification tools. Usage is only implied by the tool name and parameter semantics.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools