Skip to main content
Glama
icohangar-ops

@cubiczan/chp-mcp

Server Configuration

Describes the environment variables required to run the server.

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

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

CapabilityDetails
tools
{
  "listChanged": true
}

Tools

Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions

NameDescription
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

NameDescription

No prompts

Resources

Contextual data attached and managed by the client

NameDescription

No resources

TDQS

A4/5.0

Scored across 4 tools

Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessNo issues