agentiam-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, especially the delphi_* cluster with specific query types. However, 'delphi' and 'latest_signals' both deal with real-time signals and could cause confusion, though descriptions differentiate them. Similarly, 'risk_check' and 'riskoracle' overlap in risk assessment but with different scopes. Overall, agents can likely select the correct tool with careful reading.
Naming Consistency3/5
Naming uses a mix of conventions: single words ('audit', 'research'), concatenated words ('flowcore', 'riskoracle'), and underscores ('delphi_entity', 'risk_check'). The delphi_* tools follow a consistent pattern, but the rest do not follow a uniform verb_noun or other clear pattern. This mixed style reduces predictability.
Tool Count4/5
18 tools is on the higher side but reasonable for the broad domain covering security audits, intelligence signals, risk analysis, and execution verification. Each tool serves a specific function, and the count does not feel excessive given the scope. However, a slight reduction could improve coherence.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers most core workflows: signal querying, publishing, risk assessment, verification, and orchestration. Minor gaps exist, such as lacking signal update/delete tools and possibly entity management for the knowledge graph. Overall, the surface is largely complete for security and intelligence tasks.
Average 3/5 across 18 of 18 tools scored. Lowest: 2.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only mentions cost and network (Base via x402) but no disclosure about side effects, authorization needs, or whether it makes external calls. No safety or behavioral traits described.
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?
Single sentence including cost info is concise. However, conciseness sacrifices essential details; it is efficient but incomplete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, no explanation of return values. The description is insufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior without external documentation. Parameter help is minimal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage but the description adds no meaning beyond a free-form object pointer to an external URL. The description does not summarize expected input structure or provide examples, leaving agents with minimal guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Structured intel brief — web research + analysis', indicating it performs research and produces a brief. However, it doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'intelligence_report' or 'delphi', and the verb 'research' is generic.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description only mentions cost but does not specify prerequisites, when not to use, or how it differs from similar tools.
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 exist, so description must bear the burden. Only mentions a cost, no disclosure of side effects, safety, or return behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very short and efficient, but sacrifices essential information for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With a complex parameter (nested object), no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is too sparse to provide complete guidance.
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%, but the description adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema's external link. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'conflicting intelligence detection' which gives a clear subject but lacks specificity on what the tool does with the input. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like delphi_query.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Mentions cost and network but no context for appropriate 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only mentions the cost and payment mechanism. It does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, or what happens with the input. Vague 'synthesis' does not clarify tool behavior.
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 one sentence and front-loads the purpose. It is concise, though the inclusion of cost information is slightly tangential. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on input format, expected output, and how the synthesis works, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the single parameter with a description linking to external docs, but the tool description adds no meaning beyond that. The description does not mention the parameter at all, so it fails to add value.
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 performs 'Deep DELPHI synthesis — cross-referenced signals', indicating a specific function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delphi' or 'delphi_query', relying on the name and context.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only additional context is the cost, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.
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 provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions cost and the x402 protocol on Base, but does not explain failure modes, rate limits, authorization requirements, or output format. The behavioral disclosure is minimal and incomplete for a tool with payment implications.
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?
Two sentences, 16 words total. No fluff, front-loaded with the key benefit ('cheapest entry'). Lacks structured headings but is highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema; description does not mention return format, pagination, or error responses. Sibling tools exist but no context for when this tool is appropriate. The description is too brief for an AI agent to understand full usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has one 'input' parameter described as 'Free-form input payload' linking to external URL. Description adds no internal semantics; it does not explain the structure or constraints of the input. Schema coverage is 100% but the description provides no additional meaning beyond the schema's bare mention.
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?
Description states tool returns 'latest signals across all categories' and mentions cost and platform. Verb 'get' is implied by 'entry'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'signal_query' which may also retrieve signals with filters. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit distinction from related tools.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'cheapest entry' hints at cost sensitivity but does not state when to prefer this over other signal tools. No when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.
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?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions a cost ($0.01 per call) and protocol (x402), but omits details on mutability, side effects, authentication, rate limits, or error handling. The parameter description defers to an external URL, reducing transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief (one sentence plus cost info), which is efficient but lacks structure and detail. It is not overly verbose, yet it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description fails to adequately explain input format, query capabilities, response format, or use cases. It is incomplete for effective agent 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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds no meaningful detail beyond the schema's own description and external link, but does not detract. It meets the minimum bar.
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 performs a graph query by predicate/subject/object, identifying the resource and action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like delphi_entity or delphi_timeline, leaving room for ambiguity.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions cost and protocol, but does not explain context for invocation or exclusions.
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 provided, and the description only adds pricing and payment method (x402). It does not disclose whether the audit is read-only, destructive, or any side effects. The OWASP reference is too vague for behavioral insight.
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?
Description is extremely concise with one sentence plus pricing. No wasted words, but slightly under-specified for a tool with no output schema or annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks information about return values, error handling, authorization, and example usage. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context to compensate.
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 the single parameter, but the description only restates the schema field meaning and adds a link to external documentation. This adds minimal value beyond the schema itself.
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?
Description clearly states it performs an OWASP-class code safety audit, distinguishing it from siblings like risk_check or delphi. However, it does not specify what type of code is audited or the scope of the audit.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only includes pricing information, but no context about prerequisites or appropriate use cases.
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?
Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the burden. It reveals a cost per call, which is valuable, but does not disclose other traits like side effects, rate limits, or whether calls are read-only or mutative.
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 two sentences that convey the core purpose and a key behavioral detail (cost). No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with a single free-form parameter and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain expected input structure, output format, or how to interpret the signals.
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 is well-documented with 100% coverage, so the description needs minimal addition. The description adds the cost context but no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 'Real-time intel signals' and lists domains (crypto, AI, DeFi, macro), giving a good sense of purpose. However, it does not fully distinguish from sibling tools like 'delphi_query' or 'latest_signals'.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions cost and payment method, but lacks context on appropriate use cases.
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 the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses cost ($0.005 per call on Base via x402) and implies it is lightweight, but does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or error behavior.
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—one sentence with a purpose and cost—and front-loaded with the core function. No redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one nested object parameter, no output schema), the description lacks return value information and behavioral details. The external link to schema is present but internal completeness is low.
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 has 100% coverage (parameter described, albeit vaguely as 'Free-form input payload'). The description adds specific fields (action type, value, leverage) that the input should contain, providing meaning beyond the schema.
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 'lightweight risk score' based on action type, value, and leverage, which gives a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'riskoracle', which likely serves a similar purpose.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'riskoracle'. The description only mentions cost, not usage context or prerequisites.
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 the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions a cost of $0.01 USDC per call and the blockchain network (Base/x402), but omits critical details such as side effects, required permissions, output format, or what 'multi-factor analysis' entails.
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?
Extremely concise: one sentence plus a parenthetical note about cost. Every word serves a purpose, and the key action is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a free-form input tool with no output schema and several sibling tools, the description lacks essential context. It does not specify what output or feedback to expect, how the analysis is performed, or the tool's exact role in the agent's workflow.
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% (the single parameter 'input' is described in the schema as a free-form object with an external link). The tool description adds no additional semantic guidance beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Clear verb 'risk scoring' and resource 'pre-action' indicate what the tool does. However, sibling 'risk_check' exists on the same server, and the description does not differentiate between them, leaving ambiguity about which to choose.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'risk_check', 'delphi', or others. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.
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?
With no annotations, the description only adds cost information ($0.01 USDC) and protocol (x402), but lacks details on authorization, side effects, or return behavior.
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 very concise (one sentence plus cost), front-loads the core purpose, and contains no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description fails to explain the complex nested input structure or the output format, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3 even though the description does not add parameter meaning; the single parameter 'input' has a description linking to external docs.
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 performs 'knowledge graph entity lookup + relationships', specifying the verb (lookup) and resource (entity in knowledge graph), and distinguishes it from siblings like delphi_query and delphi_contradictions.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; no prerequisites or context provided.
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?
Discloses cost ($0.01 USDC per call) and network (Base via x402), but does not reveal whether it is read-only, required authentication, side effects, or what constitutes 'unauthorized data flow' detection. Lacks essential behavioral context beyond pricing.
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 short and includes valuable pricing info. It is front-loaded with purpose and uses efficient language. Could be more structured but remains clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a complex nested object parameter and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain return values, error handling, prerequisites, or integration context, making it incomplete for effective use.
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 sole parameter 'input' is described as 'free-form input payload' with an external link. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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's purpose: 'Verify execution integrity — detect leaks, injection, unauthorized data flow.' It provides a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on data flow leaks and injection detection.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like audit or memguard. No when-not scenarios or prerequisites mentioned, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.
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?
The description discloses cost ($0.005 per call) and earning mechanism (70% of fees), which are not in annotations. However, it does not mention other behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, or return values, which are critical for a write operation.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It effectively conveys the core action and unique monetization aspect, though it could be slightly more structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single free-form parameter and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, success conditions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent underinformed.
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% with a description for the sole parameter, albeit vague with an external link. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
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 the action 'publish a signal' and provides a distinct purpose (earning fees), which helps differentiate from sibling tools like signal_query. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It implies use for publishing signals, but lacks 'when-not' scenarios or references to alternatives.
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?
With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses the cost ($0.01 USDC per call on Base via x402) but omits other critical details like read-only vs mutable, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether any side effects occur. This is insufficient for a tool that presumably executes external calls.
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 very concise at two sentences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it sacrifices necessary details for brevity, which slightly reduces the score. A bit more structure or expansion would improve clarity.
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?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a single complex parameter referencing external docs, the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It explains what the tool does and cost, but fails to cover usage context, expected output format, or behavioral constraints needed for reliable agent use.
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 has one parameter 'input' described as 'Free-form input payload' with an external URL for details. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3, and no extra value is added.
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 provides 'chronological fact history for any entity,' which is a specific verb (retrieves history) and resource (entity timeline). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delphi_entity' or 'delphi_query' by focusing on chronological facts.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions pricing but provides no context about prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions. The agent is left without direction on selecting this tool over siblings.
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 must carry the burden. It discloses sandboxed execution (implies safety), proof hash generation, and monetary cost. However, it does not explain what 'sandboxed' entails, whether state changes occur, or how the proof hash is used.
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?
Single sentence with parenthetical cost detail. Efficient and front-loaded with key information. However, it may be too brief for full comprehension, missing a slight amount of structure.
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?
Given low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers core points but lacks details on expected output, input payload specifics, and behavioral nuances. Could be more complete for agent 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% for the single 'input' parameter, which already has a description. The tool description adds cost and sandbox context but does not elaborate on parameter format or usage beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states 'sandboxed tool execution with proof hash' and mentions cost, distinguishing it from sibling tools that are analytical or query-based. The verb 'execution' and resource 'tool' are specific, but the exact nature of the execution is abstract.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusion criteria or context for selecting this over siblings like 'risk_check' or 'research'. The cost is mentioned but not as a usage guide.
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 the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'Verif[ies]' but does not disclose whether it modifies state, what happens upon detection, or authentication requirements. The behavioral traits beyond purpose are insufficiently described.
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 a single, efficient sentence with a parenthetical cost note. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and only one parameter with an external schema link, the description lacks essential behavioral details (e.g., response format, side effects). For a verification tool, more context is needed to be complete.
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% for the single parameter 'input', with the schema describing it as 'Free-form input payload'. The description adds a link to external schema details but no additional meaning beyond the schema. Thus, it meets the baseline for high 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 uses a clear verb 'Verify' and specifies the resource 'memory/state', along with concrete detection targets ('drift, corruption, unauthorized modifications'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'audit' or 'delphi'.
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 cost and platform ('$0.01 USDC per call on Base, via x402'), providing some context for when to use it, but does not give explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance nor 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?
Description mentions determinism and cost ($0.01 USDC), providing some behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose important aspects such as side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling.
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—one sentence plus a cost note—with no redundant words. It front-loads the purpose and key attributes efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks information about the tool's output (e.g., structure of validation results, proof hash, pass/fail status). Without an output schema, this omission hinders the agent's ability to interpret responses correctly.
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 only parameter 'input' is described as a free-form payload with a link to an external schema, adding meaning beyond the schema's type declaration. This helps the agent understand the flexible nature and where to find detailed structure.
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?
Description clearly states it performs deterministic policy validation covering risk, compliance, and proof hash. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'risk_check' or 'riskoracle', which may overlap in 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 usage for validation of risk and compliance policies, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are mentioned.
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 must carry the burden. It discloses cost ($0.02 USDC per call on Base via x402) and that it chains components, but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or authorization needs. The cost disclosure is helpful but incomplete.
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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with purpose and includes cost in parentheses. Every word is necessary; no wasted content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the complexity (four components chained), the description lacks output format, error handling, prerequisites, and return value details. No output schema exists, so the description should compensate. It only covers composition and cost, leaving significant 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?
There is only one parameter ('input') and schema description coverage is 100% (the schema includes a description pointing to an external URL). The tool description does not add parameter meaning beyond the schema, so 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 is a full orchestration pipeline chaining NoLeak, MemGuard, RiskOracle, and SecureExec. The verb 'chains' and resource 'orchestration pipeline' are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools that are individual components.
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 running a full pipeline but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., calling each component separately). No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.
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 adds the cost and payment mechanism ($0.002 USDC per call via x402), which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks disclosure about read-only nature, idempotency, or other 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 one sentence with an appended cost note, both essential. Zero waste, front-loaded purpose, every word earns its place.
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 description is adequate for a query tool with the filter list, but lacks explanation of the return format or pagination, which is important given no output schema.
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 input schema's only parameter is a generic object with an external link, so the description compensates by enumerating the intended fields (type, severity, keyword, time), adding significant meaning 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 'query' and the resource 'signals' with specific filter dimensions (type, severity, keyword, time), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'delphi_query' or 'latest_signals'.
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 use for filtering signals but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'latest_signals' or 'delphi_query'), nor any exclusion criteria.
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:

[![agentiam-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/achilliesbot/agentiam-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/achilliesbot/agentiam-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![agentiam-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/achilliesbot/agentiam-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/achilliesbot/agentiam-mcp)

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/achilliesbot/agentiam-mcp'

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