Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Systemores Cloud MCP Server

Systemores Cloud MCP Server

by bobcar0
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Live Turn Audit (Systemores System One)

systemores_audit_turn_live
Read-onlyIdempotent

Audits each live interaction turn for policy compliance, sycophancy, and unauthorized tool scope, returning an inline circuit-breaker action to dispatch, intercept, quarantine, or strip the proposed tool call.

Instructions

Performs real-time (~250ms) operational and behavioral turn auditing using Systemores System One. Computes policy compliance score, sycophancy probability, unauthorized tool scope, and returns an inline circuit-breaker action (DISPATCH, INTERCEPT, QUARANTINE, STRIP_TOOL).

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": {
      "systemPrompt": "<systemPrompt>",
      "userMessage": "<userMessage>"
    },
    "name": "systemores_audit_turn_live"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
userMessageYesThe prompt or message sent by the user in this interaction turn.
systemPromptYesThe behavioral blueprint, constraints, or security policies of the agent under audit.
agentResponseNoThe proposed text response or output from the agent.
proposedToolCallNoOptional tool invocation or function call proposed by the agent (name and arguments).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.3

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds real value on top: measured latency (~250ms) and the fact that the result is an inline circuit-breaker decision drawn from a fixed action set (DISPATCH, INTERCEPT, QUARANTINE, STRIP_TOOL). It stops short of explaining thresholds for each action or what happens when optional inputs are omitted, so it is not a full behavioral account.

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, front-loaded with the verb and latency, then the outputs; essentially no filler. The second sentence is dense with five listed artifacts but remains parseable and every item is substantive.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the return payload and the enumerated action values, which is the main gap it needed to close for a four-parameter audit tool. What remains unstated is only edge behavior for the two optional parameters and the meaning of each action; a fairly complete definition overall.

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 documents all four parameters at 100% coverage, including the distinction between the optional agentResponse and proposedToolCall. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the full burden.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('turn auditing') and enumerates the concrete artifacts it produces (policy compliance score, sycophancy probability, unauthorized tool scope, circuit-breaker action). That specificity separates it implicitly from siblings like systemores_audit_agent_graph or systemores_audit_tool_integrity, though no sibling is named or explicitly excluded, keeping it short of a 5.

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 '~250ms' real-time framing implies this belongs in the live inline path rather than offline/batch analysis, which is useful implied usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative sibling for batch or graph-level auditing, so the agent must infer placement itself.

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