Anonymize and redact PII before it reaches AI models. GDPR, HIPAA, EU AI Act.
Strip and replace PII/privileged entities per GDPR, EU AI Act, HIPAA, or a custom scheme. Requires tools.text (text) or tools.file (file). Returns anonymized document + entity map, or a generic permission denial.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | Inline text when no file_path | |
| regime | Yes | ||
| file_path | No | Absolute path to pdf/docx/csv/xlsx | |
| custom_entities | No | Entity types when regime is CUSTOM |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return output ('anonymized document + entity map') and a fallback ('generic permission denial'), but it omits whether the original file is mutated, what permissions are needed, and any data-handling implications for PII.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences front-load the core action, then the input requirement, then the output. There is no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential input/output flow but leaves out sibling differentiation, side-effect information, and error handling beyond a permission denial. Adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 75%, and the description adds the meaningful relationship that text and file_path are alternatives ('Requires tools.text (text) or tools.file (file)'), which is not expressed as a schema constraint. This increment over the schema justifies above-baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific action ('Strip and replace') and a specific resource ('PII/privileged entities'), and enumerates the regulatory schemes supported. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'redact_pii', so it misses the top score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given for choosing this tool over the sibling 'redact_pii' or 'list_allowed_commands'. The only usage-related sentence states the input requirement ('Requires tools.text or tools.file'), which is a constraint rather than a selection criterion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List /questa:* slash commands the current user is allowed to run based on Blackbox role permissions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool lists only permitted commands based on role permissions, which implies a read-only, permission-filtered operation. However, it does not specify what happens when there are no allowed commands, whether the list is static or dynamic, or what the response format is. These gaps are minor for a simple listing tool but not entirely absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds essential scoping information. There is no redundant phrasing or filler. Every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description is nearly complete. It identifies the resource, the permission filter, and the actor. The absence of an output schema means the return value format is not formally documented, but the name and description make it evident that a list of slash commands is returned. This is a minor gap, not a blocking one.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description does not need to add parameter detail. The description's role-scoping context is still useful but not necessary for parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a clearly defined resource ('/questa:* slash commands'), and further scopes it by 'the current user' and 'Blackbox role permissions'. It fully distinguishes the tool's purpose from the unrelated siblings anonymize_document and redact_pii.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use this tool: to discover which /questa:* slash commands the current user may run. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools have completely different purposes, so no confusion is likely. The context is clear enough for an agent to choose this tool correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Inline redaction for contract text, emails, or transcripts by entity type. Requires tools.text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| entity_types | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that redaction is 'inline' but does not explain whether the operation mutates the input, is reversible, requires special permissions, or what the output format is. This is a significant gap for a potentially destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core capability is front-loaded, and the prerequisite is placed after the primary purpose, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves important context unstated, such as return value, side effects, and how this differs from anonymize_document. It is adequate for a basic understanding but not complete enough for an agent to invoke confidently in all relevant situations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare input schema. It hints that entity_types refers to PII categories and text covers contracts/emails/transcripts, but it does not list valid entity types, format expectations, or constraints. The added meaning is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the operation as 'inline redaction' of text, emails, or transcripts by entity type, which clearly conveys what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling anonymize_document, but the specific focus on PII entity types provides reasonable clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description names concrete input contexts (contract text, emails, transcripts) and states a prerequisite ('Requires tools.text'), which implies where the tool fits. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over anonymize_document or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
anonymize_documentlist_allowed_commandsredact_piiClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
anonymize_document and redact_pii heavily overlap: both remove/replace PII from text, with no clear boundary or explicit contrast between them. list_allowed_commands is unrelated to the core privacy workflow, so agents may struggle to choose correctly.
All tool names follow a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern: anonymize_document, list_allowed_commands, redact_pii. The naming is predictable and consistent, even though two tools overlap in purpose.
Three tools is a reasonable, compact surface for a narrow privacy/redaction server. The count is slightly thin for a broad privacy domain like GDPR/HIPAA, but not unreasonable.
Core anonymization and redaction are covered, but there is no entity discovery, scheme management, or support for updating/removing previously created anonymization mappings. redact_pii also only handles text input, leaving file-based redaction entirely dependent on the overlapping anonymize_document tool.