DatumGuard MCP Server

by tjwnsdhfz

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: contract drafting/validation, drawing comparison/generation/verification, exporting, repair proposal/application, and preview. No overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., design_contract_draft, drawing_compare). No mixing of conventions.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for the domain, covering contract design, drawing operations, repair, and export without being excessive.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: draft, validate, generate, verify, export, and repair. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.
Average 2.7/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 25 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 13, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Report... availability' and 'secondary evidence', which vaguely suggests a read-only lookup, but does not explicitly state whether it is destructive, requires authentication, or has side effects. This is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but at the expense of clarity and completeness. It earns a baseline score for brevity, but the conciseness does not serve the agent's needs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret 'availability', or the relationship between parameters. The output schema may provide return-type details, but the description still leaves significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 3 parameters (contract, artifact_hash, contract_hash) with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention or explain any parameter, so the agent learns nothing beyond the schema's bare names and types. For a tool with required parameters, this is a critical gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Report Rhino preview availability as secondary evidence only', but the resource is vague. 'Rhino preview' and 'secondary evidence' are undefined, making it hard for an agent to determine what exactly the tool retrieves. Compared to siblings like design_contract_draft or drawing_compare, the purpose is not clearly distinguished.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'secondary evidence only' hints at a specific role, but it is not elaborated, so the agent receives no practical usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions enforcing a policy but does not disclose side effects, destructiveness, permission requirements, or what changes occur. For a mutation-like tool, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but too sparse to be adequately informative. It is front-loaded with the action but omits necessary details, making it underspecified rather than efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the tool (two opaque parameters, a vague policy mention, and sibling tools like repair_propose), the description is incomplete. It does not connect to the repair workflow, explain what 'accepted' means, or clarify the output schema's content. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to the two parameters 'contract' and 'proposal'. Both are typed as arbitrary objects with additionalProperties true, leaving the agent with no clue about their structure or role. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
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 states the verb 'apply' and the resource 'accepted repair', which clearly indicates the tool's core action. However, the phrase 'after enforcing locked/free policy' introduces ambiguous jargon without explanation, slightly diminishing clarity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like repair_propose by focusing on the application step.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an accepted repair from repair_propose) or when not to use it. The context 'after enforcing locked/free policy' is vague and does not serve as actionable guidance for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks behavioral details such as whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or has side effects. 'Propose' suggests non-destructive intent, but nothing is explicit. No annotations are provided to mitigate this gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and front-loaded, but it is too terse to be effective. It sacrifices completeness for brevity, missing parameter explanations that are essential for proper usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and nested objects, the description provides no information about return values, errors, or how inputs relate to the tool's operation. This is highly incomplete for the complexity level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (contract, iteration, violations). 'Bounded changes' and 'declared free parameters' are too vague to clarify the meaning of these inputs.
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 clearly states the tool proposes bounded changes to declared free parameters, which is a specific action on a defined resource. It is not a tautology and distinguishes from siblings like repair_apply by the action 'propose'. However, it assumes domain knowledge about 'declared free parameters' without explanation, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as repair_apply or design_contract_draft. The word 'only' hints at a restriction but does not clarify prerequisites or appropriate contexts. No alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'unverified' but does not explain side effects (e.g., file overwrites, resource consumption, authentication needs) or whether operations are read-only or destructive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but overly terse. It front-loads the key output, but omits needed details, making brevity a trade-off rather than a structural strength.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the nested object parameter and lack of schema descriptions, the description is radically incomplete. It does not explain the input contract, output schema, or how this tool fits with siblings like drawing_compare or export_bundle.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'contract' is an opaque object with no schema description (0% coverage) and no hints in the tool description. The agent receives no information about its structure, required fields, or purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action (generate) and output format (unverified R2013 DXF and SVG preview), distinguishing it from sibling tools like drawing_verify or design_contract_draft.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent without context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It implies a read-only safety (re-read) but does not disclose potential side effects, performance impact, or failure modes. The description is too brief to provide meaningful transparency.
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?
The description is a single sentence that is clear and to the point, but it lacks structure. It is efficient without being verbose, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two parameters (one nested object) and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to use the parameters or what the output means, though the output schema partially mitigates that. The lack of usage context and behavioral details leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description adds no meaning. It does not explain what 'contract' or 'dxf_base64' represent or any constraints, leaving the agent to guess.
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 clearly states the tool's action (re-read and remeasure) and the resource (serialized DXF bytes). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like drawing_compare and drawing_generate by implying a verification role, though it could be more explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., drawing_compare, repair_propose). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses one behavioral trait (not inferring ambiguous numbers/units), which adds value, but lacks information on mutation, side effects, or permissions.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the purpose. Could include more structure but remains efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the nested object parameter and output schema, the description omits details about return values and parameter semantics, making it inadequate for a tool with moderate complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'contract' or 'intent_text'. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 clearly states the tool drafts a contract and adds a specific constraint about not inferring ambiguous numbers or units. This differentiates it from sibling tools like design_contract_validate, but could be more explicit about the type of contract.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like design_contract_validate. The description only provides a constraint, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the comparison action without mentioning side effects, required permissions, or output format. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be restructured to include key details upfront, but as is it is efficiently brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the comparison returns (e.g., diff list, similarity score). With two required nested objects and no schema details, the description offers insufficient completeness for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% with no property descriptions. The description hints that parameters should include 'public dimension and feature IDs', but does not specify the exact fields or structure. The open-ended nature (additionalProperties: true) is not elaborated, leaving the agent under-informed.
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 clearly states the action ('compare') and the resource ('contract revisions'), and specifies the comparison criteria ('by public dimension and feature IDs'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'drawing_verify' by mentioning specific IDs, but could be clearer about the output.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'drawing_verify' or 'design_contract_validate'. The description lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: regeneration, independent verification, and local writing. However, it omits details like permissions, side effects (e.g., overwriting), or error conditions.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the main action. It is efficient but could benefit from slightly more detail without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters (including a nested object) and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain parameter usage, output expectations, or the meaning of 'approved bundle.' The existence of an output schema does not compensate for missing guidance on inputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds no information about the three parameters (contract, workspace, auto_repair). The contract object, workspace string, and auto_repair boolean are left entirely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Regenerate, independently verify, and write an approved bundle locally.' It specifies the resource (bundle) and distinct actions, differentiating it from sibling tools like design, drawing, or repair tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., design_contract_validate or repair_apply). The description lacks context about prerequisites or excluded scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides basic behavioral context: normalization and validation for deterministic generation. However, it lacks details on side effects, idempotency, or what validation entails, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of 8 words, with no redundancy. Every word contributes to the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description omits critical details about normalization rules, validation criteria, and return behavior. For a validation tool, this incompleteness could lead to incorrect usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'contract' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain the expected structure, format, or constraints of the contract, adding no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it normalizes and validates a DesignContract for deterministic generation, using specific verbs and a distinct resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like design_contract_draft (drafting) and drawing_* (drawings).
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 description implies usage when a DesignContract needs validation, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusion criteria or contextual hints are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![datumguard MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tjwnsdhfz/datumguard/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tjwnsdhfz/datumguard)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![datumguard MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tjwnsdhfz/datumguard/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tjwnsdhfz/datumguard)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/tjwnsdhfz/datumguard'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server