clearon-source-audit
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| CLEARON_SOURCE_AUDIT_ROOT | No | Override the default storage location for audit data. If not set, audit data is stored in a platform-specific user data directory. |
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 | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| get_server_healthA | Report source-audit health, storage root, and non-publishing safety boundaries. |
| create_source_auditB | Create an audit bound to the exact SHA-256 fingerprint of an editorial revision. |
| get_source_auditB | Read an audit, its exact bound article text, registered sources, claims, and acknowledgments. |
| list_source_auditsA | List source audits and compact workflow counts. |
| register_sourceC | Register and transparently classify a source; optional retrieved text enables quotation matching. |
| record_claim_mappingA | Record a human-reviewable claim-to-source mapping, exact article excerpt, source excerpt, quotation, and procedural posture. Does not decide truth. |
| run_mechanical_checksC | Check the revision fingerprint, quotation matches, and procedural-language warnings. URL availability checks are opt-in. |
| generate_source_reportB | Generate an immutable prepublication report for the bound revision, listing every unresolved or acknowledged exception. URL availability checks are opt-in. |
| acknowledge_findingB | Record human review of an exact warning. Does not convert the underlying source or claim into support. |
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 9 tools
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but run_mechanical_checks and generate_source_report both involve opt-in URL availability checks and exception discovery, so an agent could hesitate between the check step and the report step. All other boundaries, such as registering a source versus creating an audit versus recording a claim mapping, are clear.
All nine tools consistently follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern: register_source, create_source_audit, list_source_audits, run_mechanical_checks, acknowledge_finding, and so on. There are no mixed conventions or ambiguous generic verbs.
Nine tools is well-scoped for a source-audit workflow, covering health checks, source registration, audit lifecycle, claim mapping, mechanical verification, report generation, and finding acknowledgement. Each tool occupies a meaningful workflow slot without redundancy or excessive granularity.
The core audit lifecycle is well covered: register sources, create audits, map claims, run checks, acknowledge findings, and generate reports. A minor gap is that sources and findings cannot be independently listed or managed outside of an audit, though agents can work around this through get/list audits and report output.