@cubiczan/chp-mcp
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": true
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| evaluate_spend_gateA | Run CHP Profile B capital/spend gate on a proposed action. Returns LOCKED, HITL_REQUIRED, or BLOCKED with claims and a content hash. Hard policy violations cannot be overridden by a human. |
| approve_spendA | Human-in-the-loop approval for a proposal that returned HITL_REQUIRED. Cannot approve BLOCKED / hard-rule failures (spec §6.3 / §6.5). |
| chp_content_hashA | SHA-256 over float-aware canonical JSON (CHP §3.1) — matches Python consensus-hardening-protocol digests for the same object. |
| chp_versionA | Report MCP server and CHP Profile B protocol versions. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: evaluate_spend_gate runs the policy check, approve_spend performs HITL approval, chp_content_hash computes hashes, and chp_version reports versions. No two tools overlap in purpose or could be easily confused.
The names are consistent snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (evaluate_spend_gate, approve_spend). The chp_ prefixed helpers break that pattern slightly, but the prefix clearly groups utility/version operations, so the overall convention remains predictable.
Four tools is well-scoped for a narrow CHP Profile B protocol surface: gate evaluation, human approval, hashing, and versioning. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
The core lifecycle is covered: evaluate → approve, with supporting hash and version utilities. A minor gap is the absence of an explicit tool to inspect proposal details, but the described results from evaluate_spend_gate include claims and content hashes, so agents can proceed without major dead ends.