Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
kanibal-tools-mcp

kanibal-tools-mcp

Official
by kanibal-studio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

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": false
}
prompts
{
  "listChanged": false
}
resources
{
  "subscribe": false,
  "listChanged": false
}
experimental
{}

Tools

Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions

NameDescription
check_telemarketing_consentA

France only: is a consent to telephone canvassing still valid under décret 2026-662?

Returns "valide", "expire" (older than the ceiling), "revoque" (any sign of
revocation wins) or "preuve_manquante" (no readable collection date, or one in the
future), with the expiry date and proof-retention date. Fail-closed. Use it for
French telemarketing consent only; for transfers of customer-service data outside
the EU use gdpr_offshore_gap_report. Not legal advice.
rank_lead_sources_by_kept_meetingA

Rank B2B lead sources on cost per kept qualified meeting instead of cost per lead.

Returns, per source and period, total cost, cost per lead, show rate, cost per kept meeting, cost per qualified kept meeting, and cost per deal and margin minus cost when provided. Invalid rows are reported as a tool error naming each row. Use it to compare acquisition channels; it does not check consent or GDPR. A low cost per meeting does not prove profitability.

gdpr_offshore_gap_reportA

GDPR gap report for customer-service processing outsourced outside the EU/EEA.

Checks the transfer basis (adequacy or Art. 46 safeguards), the transfer impact
assessment, the Art. 28 processor contract and its twelve clauses, Art. 32 security
controls and breach notification. Only a JSON true satisfies a check; anything else
is a gap or "to_verify". Use it for transfers outside the EU; for French
telemarketing consent use check_telemarketing_consent. Not legal advice and not a
certification: a report without blocking gap is not a finding of compliance.
select_least_cost_capable_modelA

Pick, from a supplied catalogue, the model with the lowest declared cost rank among those that have every required capability and are available and authorised.

Returns status "selected" with the comparison basis, "needs_information" naming the
missing or non-comparable evidence, or "no_candidate_in_catalogue", plus exclusions. Use it to choose
between AI models from facts you supply; it is unrelated to lead sources. Nothing
is called, switched or launched; savings are not guaranteed.

Prompts

Interactive templates invoked by user choice

NameDescription

No prompts

Resources

Contextual data attached and managed by the client

NameDescription

No resources

Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Scored across 4 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a completely different question: French telemarketing consent validity, lead-source cost ranking, GDPR offshore transfer gaps, and model selection. The descriptions go further and explicitly name the sibling tool to use instead when the user's intent differs (e.g. check_telemarketing_consent vs gdpr_offshore_gap_report, and 'unrelated to lead sources' on the model picker), which removes any realistic risk of misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

Three of four names are verb-first snake_case (check_, rank_, select_), which gives a readable pattern, but gdpr_offshore_gap_report is a bare noun phrase with no verb, breaking the convention. It is still unambiguous and self-descriptive, so the deviation is minor rather than confusing.

Tool Count4/5

Four tools is on the thin side, but each is a substantial, self-contained analysis with non-trivial inputs and outputs rather than a trivial wrapper. The count fits a small personal utility belt, though the set is a grab-bag of unrelated domains rather than a single coherent product surface.

Completeness3/5

Individually each tool covers its own scope well, with fail-closed semantics and explicit caveats (not legal advice, no guarantee), but the set has no shared domain or lifecycle, so there is no notion of a 'complete' surface — no tool links consent evidence to lead economics or to the GDPR report, and there are no read/export/list operations around any of the analyses.

Maintenance

ActivityNo data
ResponsivenessOutdated data

Resources