Agentguard47

by bmdhodl

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.2.13
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of agent guard monitoring: budget health, alerts, costs, trace details, trace decisions, usage quota, and trace search. No two tools have overlapping purposes, ensuring clear selection.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools use the 'get_' prefix (5 of 7), but 'check_budget' and 'query_traces' break the pattern. While still readable, the inconsistency slightly reduces predictability.
Tool Count5/5
7 tools is well-scoped for a monitoring-oriented server. Each tool serves a distinct and necessary function without being overwhelming or sparse.
Completeness4/5
The set covers key monitoring aspects: budget, alerts, costs, usage, and traces. Missing might be aggregate dashboards or write operations, but for a read-only guard monitoring server, the surface is reasonably complete.
Average 4/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 7 of 8 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 97 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on May 30, 2026
- 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.
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.
View related servers

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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it 'gets' data, implying a read operation, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, rate limits, or response characteristics.
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 concise with two sentences, no fluff, and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence contributes value.
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?
For a tool with no output schema and few parameters, the description could be more complete, e.g., mentioning that limit is a maximum, or that alerts are sorted by recency. It provides adequate but not rich context.
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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it only provides context for alert types.
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 identifies the tool as retrieving recent guard alerts and errors, with specific examples (loop detection, budget exceeded). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_costs and check_budget.
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 states it is 'useful for checking if your agents are hitting safety limits,' which implies usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternatives among siblings.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if trace_id is invalid. The term 'normalized' hints at transformation but is insufficient for full transparency.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words: first states action, second gives usage guidance. Front-loaded and efficient.
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's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers purpose and usage but lacks behavioral details and output hints. Adequate but not fully 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully describes the trace_id parameter. The description adds no new semantic information beyond confirming its role. 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?
Description clearly states verb 'Extract' and resource 'normalized decision.* events from one trace', specifying it focuses on decision events like proposal, override, approval, or binding steps. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_trace (full trace) and query_traces (search).
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?
Explicitly says 'Use this when a workflow includes proposal, override, approval, or binding steps', providing clear context for invocation. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the positive guidance is sufficient for a simple tool.
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; description says 'quick pass/fail' and combines data, but doesn't explain what 'safe operating limits' means, if it's read-only, latency, or 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?
Single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and scope, no wasted words.
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?
Provides adequate context for a simple check tool given no input/output schema, but could mention if results are cached or real-time.
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?
No parameters in schema (100% coverage). Description adds meaning that it's a quick check combining two sources, exceeding baseline for zero-parameter tool.
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?
Clearly states it performs a pass/fail budget health check by combining usage quota and cost data. Distinct from siblings like get_alerts or get_costs.
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?
Implied use for quick budget health check, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., get_costs, get_alerts), nor conditions to avoid.
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 carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves cost data for the current month, but does not mention whether it is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, or potential impacts. Basic behavioral context is present but lacks depth.
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 front-loads the purpose and concisely lists the output components. No unnecessary words.
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?
Given no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the scope (current month) and three key output categories. It could mention whether historical months are available, but it is adequate for a simple retrieval tool.
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 tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining what the output includes (total spend, cost by model, savings), going beyond the empty 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 it gets a cost breakdown for the current month, listing specific components: total spend, cost by model, and estimated savings. This is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_budget and get_usage.
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 retrieving cost details, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like check_budget or get_alerts. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the output contents (spans, tool/LLM calls, guard triggers, errors), which is helpful for a read operation. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden, and it covers the expected behavior well, though it could mention potential performance implications or required permissions.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes key details. No extraneous words.
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 a tool with low complexity (1 required param, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's function and output. Minor gap: could mention if the output is paginated or if there are limits, but not critical.
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 single parameter 'trace_id' is fully described in the schema with 'The trace ID to look up'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema 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 clearly states the tool retrieves the full event tree for a specific trace using its trace ID. It lists the components of the tree (spans, tool calls, LLM calls, guard triggers, errors), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'query_traces' or 'get_trace_decisions'.
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 when you have a trace ID and want a detailed view, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'query_traces' or 'get_trace_decisions'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description conveys a read-only operation by using verbs like 'Check' and 'Shows'. It details what data is returned (event count vs limit, retention period, plan details), which informs the agent of the tool's output. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is free, but these are less critical for a simple read tool.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and then lists what is shown. Every sentence adds 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 a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers functionality and output content. It could optionally mention that it's a read-only operation or the output format, but the provided details are sufficient for an agent to understand its purpose.
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 no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is baseline for this case.
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 checks event quota usage and plan limits, listing specific details (event count vs limit, retention period, plan details). It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_budget' and 'get_costs' which focus on financial aspects, while 'get_trace' and related are for trace data.
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 when needing quota information ('Check your current event quota usage'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_budget' or 'get_alerts'. No when-not or conditional guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.), description details response format (JSON with traces array and listed fields), default pagination, ordering (newest first when supported), and filtering capabilities. Provides full behavioral context.
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?
Two concise sentences with no redundant words. Front-loaded with purpose and auth requirement. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth, response structure, pagination, filtering, ordering, and links to sibling tools. Sufficient for an AI to use correctly.
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?
All 5 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds minor context like pagination and filtering, but does not provide significantly new information beyond the schema definitions.
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 is a read-only search for trace summaries, specifies the API source, and lists key fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_trace and get_trace_decisions by explaining its role in finding candidate trace IDs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Describes when to use this tool (find candidate trace IDs) and explicitly directs to alternatives (get_trace for full tree, get_trace_decisions for decision events). Also mentions required AGENTGUARD_API_KEY with read access.
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:

[![agent47 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bmdhodl/agent47/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bmdhodl/agent47)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![agent47 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bmdhodl/agent47/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bmdhodl/agent47)

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/bmdhodl/agent47'

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