EU AI Act Art-14 runtime oversight: allow / flag / gate-to-human on an agent action, with receipt.
Kerne-gaten (to-lags evaluering): Lag A (deterministisk hard-rule/outward-match, ingen LLM) + Lag B (Sonnet vurderer mod charterets NL-principper via LiteLLM :4000, citerer principle_id + reasoning — INGEN egen alvorligheds-dom) → most-restrictive-wins aggregeret, auditerbar receipt: {action, deterministic_flags[], values_assessment[], values_assessment_unavailable, unrecognized_principle_citations, principles_evaluated, recommendation, requires_human, charter_name, scope_note}.
recommendation ∈ {allow, flag, gate_to_human} — ALDRIG approved/denied/true/false.
ADVISORY: anbefaler, blokerer/eksekverer/autoriserer ALDRIG (never-decide-for-you).
FAIL-SAFE: Lag B utilgængelig -> Lag A kører stadig, values_assessment_unavailable=true,
recommendation løftet til MINDST 'flag' (aldrig stille 'allow'). Read-only — skriver
INTET, ingen side-effekter.
PUBLIC_DEMO-mode: vurderet mod det OFFENTLIGE Art-14-demo-charter (ikke din org — se
scope_note). Rate-limitet (default 5/min + 30/time, ÉN global demo-bucket). Over grænsen
returneres {error:"rate_limited", retry_after_s, scope_note} — ALDRIG et
recommendation-formet svar. Bogholderi-fejl i rate-limiteren -> deny (fail-safe).
RED-TEAM-FIX (minimal-indgreb): tomt/whitespace-only action valideres FØR rate-limiteren
forbruger en kvote-token — en ugyldig-input-loop kan ellers stille dræne demoens kvote uden
at nogensinde levere en receipt (rå ValueError fra firewall.check_action's fail-loud-guard
ville ellers både forbruge kvote OG propagere ubehandlet til transport-laget, hvilket
bryder "check_action leverer ALTID en receipt/struktureret fejl"-disciplinen). Uden for
PUBLIC_DEMO uændret: fw.check_action's egen ValueError-fail-loud gælder stadig (bindende,
testet i test_values_firewall.py).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| context | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behavioral traits: read-only with no side effects, advisory-only (never blocks/executes), most-restrictive-wins aggregation, fail-safe when Layer B is unavailable (recommendation lifted to at least 'flag'), rate limiting behavior, and error handling (rate_limited response). It also details the red-team-fix for empty action validation, which is highly transparent about edge cases.
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 long and dense, with multiple sections including a very specific RED-TEAM-FIX that is tangential to general tool usage. While it is structured in paragraphs, it lacks bullet points or clear separation of core vs. edge-case information, making it harder to parse quickly. Every sentence adds some behavioral detail, but the overall size is excessive for a tool selection scenario.
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?
The description is highly comprehensive for a tool with an output schema: it explains the returned receipt fields, recommendation values, rate-limiting errors, and fail-safe modes. However, it leaves a gap in parameter semantics (especially 'context') and does not fully describe what constitutes a valid 'action' string, which is a notable omission for practical use.
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 description provides minimal parameter meaning: it discusses 'action' only in the context of empty/whitespace validation, and does not explain what 'action' should contain or what 'context' is. Input schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by describing parameter semantics beyond that single edge case.
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 clearly states the tool's core function: a two-layer evaluation gate (deterministic + LLM) that produces a recommendation (allow/flag/gate_to_human) for an action. It distinguishes itself from the sibling check_action_deterministic by explicitly describing the dual-layer architecture and the advisory nature.
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 implies when to use the tool (e.g., when a full two-layer evaluation is needed, or when operating in PUBLIC_DEMO mode) and describes fail-safe behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over check_action_deterministic or list_charter. No explicit exclusion guidance is provided beyond mentioning different modes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
KUN Lag A — ingen LLM-kald overhovedet (billig, ren mekanisk, spejler consistency-gates check_triple). Samme receipt-form som check_action, men values_assessment er altid tom, values_assessment_unavailable altid false, og scope_note siger eksplicit 'values_layer_consulted:false'. Read-only.
PUBLIC_DEMO-mode: ÅBEN, GRATIS — ALDRIG rate-begrænset (spec §2, ingen LLM-kost). Vurderet mod det offentlige Art-14-demo-charter; scope_note får demo-disclosuren appended.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| context | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: read-only, no LLM call, values_assessment always empty, values_assessment_unavailable always false, scope_note contains 'values_layer_consulted:false', and demo disclosures are appended in PUBLIC_DEMO-mode. This goes beyond minimal expectations.
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 moderately sized and front-loaded with the key point (no LLM call). Some punctuation and capitalization are inconsistent, but every sentence contributes useful information without major redundancy.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. The description covers the tool's deterministic nature, cost profile, and demo-mode behavior. However, it lacks an explicit high-level statement of what the 'check' actually evaluates, relying on knowledge of check_action and check_triple.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the 'action' or 'context' parameters. It only indirectly indicates that 'action' is the subject of the check and 'context' is optional. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of explanation.
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 states it is a deterministic, mechanical check with no LLM call, mirroring consistency-gates check_triple, and producing the same receipt form as check_action. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling check_action, though the core 'check' semantics are implied rather than stated.
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 indicates this is the cheap, mechanical, read-only variant and mentions the PUBLIC_DEMO-mode as free and never rate-limited. It contrasts with check_action, implying check_action is for LLM-based assessment, but it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Transparens: hvilke regler/principper håndhæver DENNE firewall lige nu — navn/version/ hard_rules/outward_patterns/principles. Values-locked (arvet): firewall'en håndhæver KUN dette deklarerede charter, opfinder aldrig regler/principper udenfor det.
PUBLIC_DEMO-mode: ÅBEN, GRATIS — ALDRIG rate-begrænset. Viser det OFFENTLIGE Art-14-demo-
charter (6 principper, 4 hard_rules, 14 outward_patterns) — ikke noget kunde-/fleet-/
TIER-1-charter. Får et scope_note-felt med demo-disclosuren tilføjet (fraværende i
default-mode — additiv, ingen bestående felter ændres).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses values-locked behavior (only declared charter enforced), demo mode being open/free/never rate-limited, and the additive scope_note field. This goes far beyond basic description, fully compensating for missing annotations.
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 concise yet information-dense, using two focused paragraphs. Every sentence adds value, and the structure clearly separates general transparency from demo-mode specifics.
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?
The description covers the tool's purpose, output fields, demo vs default mode differences, and the scope_note addition. While an output schema exists, the supplementary context about demo disclosure and values-locked behavior makes the description highly complete for a zero-parameter tool.
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, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter-specific meaning to add, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior and output rather than inputs.
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 clearly states the tool lists the current rules/principles enforced by the firewall, specifying the exact fields (name/version/hard_rules/outward_patterns/principles). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_action/check_action_deterministic, which presumably test actions rather than list the charter.
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 conveys the tool is for transparency about the firewall's enforced charter, and explains the PUBLIC_DEMO-mode behavior. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough to infer appropriate use.
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.
check_actioncheck_action_deterministiclist_charterClaiming 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!
Human-in-the-loop approval for agent actions, with verifiable action-bound receipts.
Runtime AI governance: decision gates, human approval, hash-chained audit, compliance mapping.
Decision-assurance for AI agents: an auditable action boundary + receipt before it acts.
Policy gate and signed trust receipts for autonomous agent actions.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct role: full values assessment, deterministic assessment without LLM, and charter listing. The overlap between the two assessment tools is clearly bounded by the explicit layer difference (Lag A vs Lag A+B).
All tools use verb_noun underscore naming (check_action, check_action_deterministic, list_charter). The deterministic variant logically extends check_action, maintaining a predictable pattern.
Three tools is well-scoped for a read-only advisory firewall. Each tool serves a necessary function without unnecessary bloat.
The domain is fully covered: inspect the governing charter, run a full assessment, and run a fast deterministic assessment. No obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.
