Skip to main content
Glama
ay7627514-dotcom

TruthGate

by ay7627514-dotcom
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.2.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a distinct role: preflight prepares tasks before tool use, verify checks final outputs, and authorize handles human approval. No overlap in purpose.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow the 'truthgate_verb' pattern with clear action verbs (preflight, verify, authorize), providing a predictable naming scheme.

    Tool Count4/5

    Three tools is on the smaller side but suitable for a specialized gatekeeping server that handles pre-use, post-use, and approval steps.

    Completeness4/5

    The set covers the key stages of the gating workflow: pre-check, verification, and authorization. Minor gaps like handling verification failures are not critical.

  • Average 2.3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • 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.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • 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. The description does not disclose side effects, permissions, or behavior (e.g., read-only, destructive). For a verification tool, it should indicate if it modifies state or requires specific access.

    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 a single sentence with minimal noise, but it is too brief and lacks structure. Some detail could be added without sacrificing conciseness.

    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 a single parameter, no output schema details provided, and no annotations, the description fails to explain what the output represents or error handling. The tool's completeness is insufficient for a verification task.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters1/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The sole parameter 'payload_json' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain what the payload should contain or its role in verification.

    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 the tool verifies 'Hermes' final candidate' against evidence and tool traces, indicating a specific verb and resource. However, 'Hermes' and 'candidate' are domain-specific terms not explained, reducing clarity. It distinguishes from siblings by implying a final verification step, but not explicitly.

    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 siblings (truthgate_preflight, truthgate_authorize). The description does not provide context for appropriate usage or 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 fully disclose behavior. It states the tool consumes an approval, implying a state change, but does not detail side effects, required permissions, error conditions, or whether the action is irreversible. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

    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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks critical details about parameters and behavior. It is not too wordy, but the brevity sacrifices completeness.

    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 absence of annotations, an output schema exists to define the response, but the description does not mention the output format or any preconditions. For a tool with three required parameters and no sibling usage guidance, the description is insufficiently complete.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters1/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The input schema has three required parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no explanation of what task_id, task_digest, or approval_token mean. The description adds zero value beyond the schema titles.

    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 tool consumes a human-issued approval before a risky action, indicating its role in the authorization flow. It distinguishes from siblings (preflight, verify) by focusing on the final approval step, though it could be more explicit about the exact resource being consumed.

    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?

    The description only implies usage 'immediately before a risky action' but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the siblings truthgate_preflight or truthgate_verify. No exclusions or alternative scenarios are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer proper context.

    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 description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. 'Compile and gate' is vague without further context on what happens to the task.

    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?

    Description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified and does not earn its place by providing sufficient detail.

    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 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema present but unmentioned, the description fails to cover essential context for correct usage.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters1/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no information about any of the 6 parameters (task, context, task_id, etc.). This is a critical gap for a tool with multiple parameters.

    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 specifies the action ('compile and gate') and resource ('a task') with context ('before Hermes uses external tools'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by implying it's a preparatory step, but could be more explicit about what 'compile and gate' entails.

    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 siblings 'truthgate_verify' or 'truthgate_authorize'. The description does not provide exclusions or alternative conditions.

    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

truthgate MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

truthgate MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

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/ay7627514-dotcom/truthgate'

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