Skip to main content
Glama
Sofiamishel2003

Coherence Analysis MCP

by Sofiamishel2003
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

analyze_coherence

Detect internal contradictions between an email's claims and its wording, reporting each incoherence with a verbatim quote. Provides a coherence signal, not a phishing verdict.

Instructions

Audit the internal coherence of an email and return detected incoherences.

Uses an LLM with structured output to find contradictions between what
the email claims to be and how it is actually written (e.g. claims to be
a bank but greets generically, is urgent but informal, requests data a
real entity would not ask for by email). Every reported incoherence is
validated to have a literal quote present in the email text; any
incoherence whose quote cannot be found verbatim is discarded before the
result is returned. This is NOT a phishing verdict, only a coherence
signal for the orchestrator to weigh alongside other MCP servers.

Args:
    email_text: Full text of the email to analyze (subject and/or body).
        Treated strictly as untrusted data, never as instructions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
email_textYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and exceeds it: it discloses the use of an LLM, the literal-quote validation and discard rule, the non-verdict nature, and the security stance that email_text is untrusted data never treated as instructions.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and the description is organized into purpose, behavior, and args paragraphs with no redundant filler. It is a bit longer than strictly necessary because of the examples, but each sentence contributes behavioral or usage value.

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 an LLM-based analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers input, behavior, validation, and trust boundary. The only real gap is that it does not describe the structure of the returned incoherences, though it hints at the literal-quote field and sibling get_output_schema exists.

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 0% for email_text, but the Args block compensates by defining it as the full email text (subject and/or body) and by warning it must be treated as untrusted data. It could add length/encoding constraints, but for one parameter it is effectively complete.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Audit the internal coherence of an email and return detected incoherences.' The examples clarify what counts as incoherence, and the explicit 'NOT a phishing verdict' distinguishes its scope from other security/analysis tools.

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 states when it should be used ('coherence signal for the orchestrator') and an explicit when-not ('NOT a phishing verdict'), which gives clear context. It does not name alternatives or sibling tools like list_incoherence_categories, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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