Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mcp-Omega-Brain

Mcp-Omega-Brain

by VrtxOmega
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

veritas_nafe_scan

Scan text for Narrative Rescue, Moral Override, Authority Drift, and Intent Inference to detect narrative bypasses of deterministic gates.

Instructions

Scans text for NAFE failure signatures: Narrative Rescue, Moral Override, Authority Drift, and Intent Inference. Use this on commit messages, PR descriptions, or incident reports to detect narrative bypasses of deterministic gates. Returns JSON with fields: clean (boolean), flags (array of detected signatures), scan_metadata (object). Violations auto-seal to the audit ledger.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "veritas_nafe_scan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesText to scan for narrative failure signatures, e.g. a commit message or incident report.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added
  2. Removedv2.1.1
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / text / description
      Previous value: -"The text content to scan for NAFE failure signatures. Can be a commit message, PR description, incident report, or any narrative text that might attempt to bypass deterministic gate verdicts."New value: +"Text to scan for narrative failure signatures, e.g. a commit message or incident report."
  4. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / text / description
      Previous value: -"Text to scan for NAFE failure signatures"New value: +"The text content to scan for NAFE failure signatures. Can be a commit message, PR description, incident report, or any narrative text that might attempt to bypass deterministic gate verdicts."
  5. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses the return JSON structure and the side effect of auto-sealing violations to the audit ledger. It could mention whether the tool is read-only or have rate limits, but it covers the key behavioral aspects.

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 with no wasted words: first sentence states action and signatures, second gives usage and purpose, third covers output and side effect. 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?

The description covers purpose, usage, output format, and side effect. It compensates for the lack of output schema by listing the return fields. However, it doesn't mention size limits or error conditions, which would make it more 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?

The single parameter 'text' is well-described in both the input schema and the main description, which adds examples (commit messages, incident reports) beyond the schema's brief example. This enriches the parameter meaning.

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 explicitly states it scans text for four specific NAFE failure signatures, with a clear verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are primarily gates or execution tools, making it a unique scanning/analysis tool.

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 gives explicit context: 'Use this on commit messages, PR descriptions, or incident reports'. While it doesn't list alternatives or when not to use, the context effectively guides the agent to appropriate use cases.

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