Skip to main content
Glama

Agent Broker

by dev.hatchloop

check_compliance

Read-onlyIdempotent

Free, instant pre-flight for the compliance gate. Runs the SAME TCPA / GDPR / CASL / CAN-SPAM / 10DLC gate that send_message and call_business run — but in preview mode, so NO message is sent and NO state changes. Tells you whether a (recipient, channel, message_type, content) send would be permitted BEFORE you pay for it, and if not, names the exact rule and how to remediate. Use it to de-risk a paid send the same way check_booking_link de-risks a paid booking. Attaches a compliance_receipt: an Ed25519-signed, hash-bound record of what was checked, when, against which sources, and what it returned - verifiable OFFLINE against the public key published at https://hatchloop.dev/agents.md, so you can hand it to an auditor as evidence the check really ran.

EXAMPLE USER QUERIES THAT MATCH THIS TOOL: user: "Is it legal to text this US number a 20%-off promo?" -> call check_compliance({"recipient_id": "+14045550200", "content": "20% off this week only!", "channel": "sms", "message_type": "marketing", "country_code": "US"}) user: "Before you email the dentist, make sure it's allowed" -> call check_compliance({"recipient_id": "office@dentist.example", "content": "Do you accept Cigna? Following up on my request.", "message_type": "follow_up"}) -> then send_message({"recipient": {"id_type": "email", "id_value": "office@dentist.example"}, "message_type": "follow_up", "content": {"body": "Do you accept Cigna? Following up on my request."}})

WHEN TO USE: Call this the moment before send_message or call_business when there is any chance the send is regulated — anything tagged marketing, any SMS to a US number (10DLC), any message to an EU/UK (GDPR) or Canadian (CASL) recipient, or any content you are unsure about. It is free and sub-100ms, so run it as a guard: if legal=true, proceed to send_message with confidence; if legal=false, fix the cited blocker instead of burning a paid, rejected send. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not treat a legal=true as a permanent license — the gate re-runs at send time, so a fresh opt-out between preview and send still blocks. Do not use it to check two-party voice recording consent (that is evaluated at call time in the voice adapter, not here). It is not a substitute for send_message; it never delivers anything. COST: free - no key required LATENCY: ~15ms

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
channelNoDelivery channel. Omit to auto-infer sms/email from recipient_id; set 'voice' explicitly.
contentYesThe actual message body you intend to send. The gate classifies the real text, so a meaningful preview needs the real content.
state_codeNoUS state code (e.g. 'CA') for state-specific rules.
country_codeNoISO 3166-1 alpha-2 (e.g. 'US', 'DE', 'CA'). Auto-inferred from phone if omitted; drives which jurisdiction rules apply.
message_typeNoIntent tag: transactional, marketing, reminder, follow_up, notification. 'marketing' triggers the consent checks. Defaults to transactional.transactional
recipient_idYesPhone in E.164 (e.g. '+14045550100') or email address the message would go to.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces this with 'NO message is sent and NO state changes.' It adds extra behavioral context: gate re-runs at send time so legal=true is not permanent, compliance_receipt is Ed25519-signed and offline-verifiable, and consent is evaluated elsewhere for voice.

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?

Well-structured with an upfront summary followed by examples, WHEN TO USE/WHEN NOT TO USE, and cost/latency. Slightly longer than strictly necessary due to two example queries and repetition of 'free' and '~15ms' in both prose and headers, but every major section earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 6-param tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation context, return behavior (legal true/false, cited rule, remediation, receipt), exclusions, cost, and latency. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call it and what to do with the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a rich description. The tool description adds little beyond example call arguments and the general (recipient, channel, message_type, content) tuple, so it doesn't materially raise the baseline.

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 opening sentence names a specific action ('pre-flight for the compliance gate'), the exact regulations covered, and preview mode. It explicitly contrasts with send_message and call_business, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

WHEN TO USE spells out concrete triggering conditions (marketing tag, US SMS/10DLC, EU/UK GDPR, Canadian CASL, uncertain content) and the guard pattern before send_message/call_business. WHEN NOT TO USE explicitly excludes voice recording consent and says it never delivers anything, and references check_booking_link as the analogous de-risking tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Agent Broker toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct resource+action pairs (find_business vs verify_business, check_booking_link vs import_booking_url, get_status vs get_outcome). The main confusable pairs are send_message vs send_transactional_confirmation and verify_business vs verify_company_record, but their descriptions draw clear boundary lines.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set overwhelmingly follows lower_snake_case verb_noun naming (call_business, check_quota, find_business, send_message, verify_company_record). Minor deviations like self_test and mint_key, plus inconsistent verb choices (lookup_ vs get_ vs find_), prevent a perfect score.

Tool Count3/5

At 23 tools, the server falls into the heavy range and bundles several unrelated domains: SMB booking/messaging, trade and sanctions compliance, company verification, and platform operations. Each tool is individually reasonable, but the set feels like multiple servers merged into one.

Completeness3/5

Core SMB workflows are well covered: find/verify/import/book, messaging with conversation handling, and compliance preflights. Notable gaps include no consent-record management even though send_message requires consent_record_id for marketing, no update/delete lifecycle for leads or businesses, and no webhook configuration despite webhooks being referenced.

Resources