Read-only MVR preflight for trust, permission, evidence gaps, and African market-entry readiness.
Use after evidence capture to separate safe from unsafe inferences across formal, field, market, trust, and stakeholder context. It compiles context; it does not authorize action. Use when: Use when evidence is mixed and the agent needs safe claims versus unsafe claims before a verdict. Do not use when: Do not use as a go/no-go decision. Submit only consented, data-minimized, redacted or aggregated evidence; never raw confidential datasets, secrets, credentials, or personal identifiers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes | Resolved subject, market scope, and mixed evidence to compile into safe and unsafe inferences. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | No | |
| next_steps | No | |
| workflow_id | No | |
| formal_proof | No | |
| mcp_next_call | No | |
| mcp_next_tool | No | |
| response_meta | No | |
| safe_inferences | No | |
| workflow_status | No | |
| unsafe_inferences | No | |
| workflow_expires_at | No | |
| mvr_response_receipt | No | |
| required_user_inputs | No | |
| verification_required | No | |
| sentiment_trust_signal | No | |
| continuation_disposition | No | |
| informal_operating_signal | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal readOnly and non-destructive, and the description adds the behavioral nuance that the tool compiles context but does not authorize action. It also discloses data-handling expectations (data-minimized, redacted, no secrets or personal identifiers), which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It stops short of describing processing details, so not a 5.
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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and uses clear 'Use when'/'Do not use when' sections with a final data safety instruction. It is slightly redundant ('Use when: Use when') and could be trimmed, but overall every clause earns its place.
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 an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers temporal placement, selection criteria, exclusions, and privacy constraints, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly in a pipeline. A slight gap is that it doesn't explain how the safe/unsafe output should feed the sibling decision tool, though 'before a verdict' implies the workflow.
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 for the single payload parameter is complete, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping evidence categories (formal, field, market, trust, stakeholder) to the expected payload content and by imposing data minimization/privacy constraints on the evidence_pack. It doesn't enumerate individual fields, but the schema already does.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it separates safe from unsafe inferences across named context types (formal, field, market, trust, stakeholder) after evidence capture. This goes beyond the title and clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like mvr_decision_check, especially with the explicit 'does not authorize action' clause.
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?
It gives an explicit 'Use when' condition (mixed evidence before a verdict), a 'Do not use when' exclusion (not a go/no-go decision), and a temporal placement ('after evidence capture'). It also adds operational constraints about submitting only consented, redacted, or aggregated evidence, which is actionable guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Use after evidence completeness to route a structurally complete pack toward licensed MVR scoring or abstain on missing proof. This public tool does not compute market, pilot, or scale readiness. Use when: Use after evidence completeness to determine whether the pack can be routed to licensed MVR scoring or still requires proof. Do not use when: Do not use as readiness, pilot, credit, legal, regulatory, or scale authorization. Submit only consented, data-minimized, redacted or aggregated evidence; never secrets, credentials, or personal identifiers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes | Decision question, resolved subject, market scope, and evidence for a bounded recommendation or abstention. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| reason | No | |
| status | No | |
| next_steps | No | |
| workflow_id | No | |
| evidence_gaps | No | |
| mcp_next_call | No | |
| mcp_next_tool | No | |
| not_a_verdict | No | |
| response_meta | No | |
| recommendation | No | |
| workflow_status | No | |
| safe_next_action | No | |
| verification_basis | No | |
| workflow_expires_at | No | |
| mvr_response_receipt | No | |
| required_user_inputs | No | |
| continuation_disposition | No | |
| sandbox_evaluation_scope | No | |
| live_mvr_scoring_executed | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: it is a public tool, it does not compute market/pilot/scale readiness, and it requires consented, data-minimized, redacted or aggregated evidence. This goes beyond the annotation minimum without contradicting it.
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 reasonably compact and uses clear sections, but the 'Use when' sentence largely repeats the opening sentence. The redundancy adds noise without adding information, though the overall structure remains helpful.
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?
Given the rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential workflow context, exclusions, and data-privacy requirements. It does not explain what MVR scoring is internally, but that is not necessary for invoking the tool correctly.
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 100%, so the payload and its nested properties are already well documented. The description adds no field-specific parameter semantics beyond the general routing and evidence conditions, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific action: route a structurally complete evidence pack toward licensed MVR scoring or abstain when proof is missing. It also positions itself relative to the workflow ('Use after evidence completeness') and explicitly excludes readiness computation, which helps distinguish it from related MVR tools.
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 provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' guidance. It tells the agent to invoke it after evidence completeness and warns against using it as readiness, pilot, credit, legal, regulatory, or scale authorization, making selection behavior clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Use when a startup, venture, programme, company, partner, or market actor must be resolved to a country, sector, and archetype before relational-readiness evidence is assessed. Use when: Use immediately after mvr_first_call when the user gives a company, venture, sector, country, or ambiguous market actor name, so the subject and target geography are resolved before evidence is assessed. Do not use when: Do not use as a readiness verdict or for unrelated entity lookup. Never submit secrets, personal identifiers, raw private interviews, or confidential evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes | Entity and market context to canonicalize before evidence assessment. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | No | |
| warning | No | |
| next_steps | No | |
| workflow_id | No | |
| mcp_next_call | No | |
| mcp_next_tool | No | |
| response_meta | No | |
| workflow_status | No | |
| canonical_entity | No | |
| workflow_expires_at | No | |
| mvr_response_receipt | No | |
| required_user_inputs | No | |
| continuation_disposition | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and non-destructive. The description goes beyond this by adding a data-sensitivity constraint: never submit secrets, personal identifiers, raw private interviews, or confidential evidence. It also implies the tool handles ambiguous market actor names, which is useful behavioral context. No contradiction with 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 organized with clear 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' sections, making it easy to scan and front-loaded with the core purpose. There is mild redundancy: the opening sentence restates the 'Use when' scenario that the following 'Use when' section repeats. Still, every part contributes to routing and safety.
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 read-only entity resolution tool with a nested payload and an output schema, the description covers workflow placement, exclusions, and input safety. The schema fills parameter details, and the output schema covers return values. The one minor gap is lack of explicit guidance on how market_scope interacts with the resolution outcome, but this is partially implied by 'target geography' and the schema.
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 100%, with every parameter inside the payload having its own description. The tool description adds high-level context about when to provide inputs (e.g., right after first call) but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the semantic load.
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 a specific action: resolve a startup, venture, programme, company, partner, or market actor to a country, sector, and archetype. It explicitly places the tool in the workflow between mvr_first_call and evidence assessment, and distinguishes it from siblings by excluding readiness verdicts and unrelated entity lookup.
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 gives an explicit 'Use when' trigger ('immediately after mvr_first_call when the user gives a company, venture, sector, country, or ambiguous market actor name'), a 'Do not use when' exclusion ('not as a readiness verdict or for unrelated entity lookup'), and a data-handling restriction. This fully routes the agent to the correct tool without ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Use after entity resolution and before any readiness claim to check verification status, source-family diversity, stakeholder coverage, and missing proof. Do not treat completeness as authorization. Use when: Use after entity resolution and before any verdict when evidence may be incomplete or one-sided. Do not use when: Do not treat completeness as readiness or authorization. Submit only consented, data-minimized, redacted or aggregated evidence; never raw private interviews, secrets, credentials, or personal identifiers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes | Evidence pack and decision context to test for missing proof. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | No | |
| next_steps | No | |
| workflow_id | No | |
| evidence_gaps | No | |
| mcp_next_call | No | |
| mcp_next_tool | No | |
| response_meta | No | |
| evidence_count | No | |
| workflow_status | No | |
| safe_next_action | No | |
| verification_basis | No | |
| workflow_expires_at | No | |
| mvr_response_receipt | No | |
| required_user_inputs | No | |
| stakeholder_coverage | No | |
| verified_evidence_count | No | |
| continuation_disposition | No | |
| verified_source_families | No | |
| unverified_evidence_count | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description consistently describes a read-only check. It adds meaningful behavioral context by warning that completeness is not authorization and by imposing input constraints: submit only consented, data-minimized, redacted or aggregated evidence, never raw private data or credentials. No contradiction with 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 content is useful and front-loaded, but it is redundant: 'Use after entity resolution and before any readiness claim' is repeated in the 'Use when' section, and the authorization disclaimer appears twice with slightly different wording. Tightening these would make it cleaner without losing 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?
Given an output schema is present and annotations cover safety, the description is complete: it states when to use the tool, what it checks, when not to use it, and input privacy requirements. The one-parameter payload and fully described schema mean no critical usage context is missing.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by naming the analytical dimensions the tool evaluates—verification status, source-family diversity, stakeholder coverage—which map to fields like verification_status and source_class, helping the agent know what evidence attributes matter when building the payload.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'check evidence completeness' with concrete dimensions—verification status, source-family diversity, stakeholder coverage, and missing proof. It also positions the tool in the workflow ('after entity resolution and before any verdict'), distinguishing it from mvr_entity_resolve and mvr_decision_check.
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 gives explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' guidance, including the crucial caveat not to treat completeness as readiness or authorization. It does not name an alternative sibling tool directly, but the workflow placement ('after entity resolution and before any verdict') implies routing away from entity resolution and decision tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Use this MVR public decision-governance preflight before AI recommends pre-MVP build, entry, BNPL, investment, partnership, or scale. Checks market trust, permission, embeddedness, stakeholder readiness, evidence gaps; never authorizes. Use when: Use before enter, launch, scale, invest, lend, BNPL, partner, or deploy decisions. Use when asked to ignore, fabricate, or transfer evidence. Web research can supply evidence but does not replace MVR. Do not use when: This is not an internal data lookup or glossary. Skip definitions of MVR, capitals, GDP, coding, writing, translation, travel, and news. Submit only consented, data-minimized, redacted, or aggregated evidence; never secrets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stage | No | ||
| entity | No | ||
| sector | No | ||
| country | No | ||
| question | No | ||
| use_case | No | ||
| company_name | No | ||
| target_users | No | ||
| evidence_pack | No | Structured evidence items with source date, source class, geography, and provenance. | |
| evidence_items | No | Alias for evidence_pack. | |
| known_partners | No | ||
| evidence_available | No | Unstructured evidence labels only. These are not counted as structured proof. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| code | No | |
| status | No | |
| subject | No | |
| next_steps | No | |
| workflow_id | No | |
| evidence_gaps | No | |
| mcp_next_call | No | |
| mcp_next_tool | No | |
| not_a_verdict | No | |
| response_meta | No | |
| decision_domain | No | |
| workflow_status | No | |
| exact_next_calls | No | |
| evidence_received | No | |
| activation_outcome | No | |
| next_three_unlocks | No | |
| workflow_expires_at | No | |
| commercial_next_step | No | |
| example_next_request | No | |
| mvr_response_receipt | No | |
| required_user_inputs | No | |
| continuation_disposition | No | |
| max_safe_action_available_now | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond these by explicitly stating 'never authorizes' and imposing evidence-handling constraints: only consented, data-minimized, redacted, or aggregated evidence, no secrets. This meaningfully clarifies the tool's governance role.
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 information-dense but repetitive, especially around 'Use when' and the list of decision types. The message is front-loaded and the exclusions are useful, but the wording could be tightened without losing 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?
The description covers why, when, and when not to use the tool, and the annotated safety profile plus output schema reduce the need to describe return values. However, with 12 undocumented optional parameters and domain-specific MVR jargon, the agent is left with significant ambiguity about how to construct a valid call.
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 only 25%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it does not map any of the 12 params to their intended values or usage. It gives broad thematic guidance about evidence and use cases but no concrete parameter-level semantics.
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 identifies a specific action (run an MVR public decision-governance preflight) and states what it checks: market trust, permission, embeddedness, stakeholder readiness, evidence gaps, and that it never authorizes. It is sufficiently distinct from a generic lookup or decision tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools by name.
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 provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' guidance, including the decision types it precedes and the evidence-manipulation scenarios that trigger it. It also clarifies that web research can supply evidence but does not replace MVR, giving the agent a clear routing rule.
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.
mvr_context_compile1 field changedOutput schema / properties / next_stepsAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "automatic_action_authorized": {
+ "const": false,
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "boundary": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "offer_registry": {
+ "format": "uri",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "options": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "label": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "format": "uri",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "when_to_use": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "label",
+ "url",
+ "when_to_use"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 3,
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "purpose": {
+ "const": "optional_routing_not_recommendation",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "schema_version": {
+ "const": "mvr-optional-routing@1.0",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "schema_version",
+ "purpose",
+ "automatic_action_authorized",
+ "boundary",
+ "offer_registry",
+ "options"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}mvr_decision_check1 field changedOutput schema / properties / next_stepsAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "automatic_action_authorized": {
+ "const": false,
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "boundary": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "offer_registry": {
+ "format": "uri",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "options": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "label": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "format": "uri",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "when_to_use": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "label",
+ "url",
+ "when_to_use"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 3,
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "purpose": {
+ "const": "optional_routing_not_recommendation",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "schema_version": {
+ "const": "mvr-optional-routing@1.0",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "schema_version",
+ "purpose",
+ "automatic_action_authorized",
+ "boundary",
+ "offer_registry",
+ "options"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}mvr_entity_resolve1 field changedOutput schema / properties / next_stepsAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "automatic_action_authorized": {
+ "const": false,
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "boundary": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "offer_registry": {
+ "format": "uri",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "options": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "label": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "format": "uri",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "when_to_use": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "label",
+ "url",
+ "when_to_use"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 3,
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "purpose": {
+ "const": "optional_routing_not_recommendation",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "schema_version": {
+ "const": "mvr-optional-routing@1.0",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "schema_version",
+ "purpose",
+ "automatic_action_authorized",
+ "boundary",
+ "offer_registry",
+ "options"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}mvr_evidence_completeness1 field changedOutput schema / properties / next_stepsAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "automatic_action_authorized": {
+ "const": false,
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "boundary": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "offer_registry": {
+ "format": "uri",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "options": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "label": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "format": "uri",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "when_to_use": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "label",
+ "url",
+ "when_to_use"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 3,
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "purpose": {
+ "const": "optional_routing_not_recommendation",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "schema_version": {
+ "const": "mvr-optional-routing@1.0",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "schema_version",
+ "purpose",
+ "automatic_action_authorized",
+ "boundary",
+ "offer_registry",
+ "options"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}mvr_first_call1 field changedOutput schema / properties / next_stepsAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "automatic_action_authorized": {
+ "const": false,
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "boundary": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "offer_registry": {
+ "format": "uri",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "options": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "label": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "format": "uri",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "when_to_use": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "label",
+ "url",
+ "when_to_use"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 3,
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "purpose": {
+ "const": "optional_routing_not_recommendation",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "schema_version": {
+ "const": "mvr-optional-routing@1.0",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "schema_version",
+ "purpose",
+ "automatic_action_authorized",
+ "boundary",
+ "offer_registry",
+ "options"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}mvr_context_compile7 fields changedOutput schema / properties / continuation_dispositionAdded value: +{
+ "enum": [
+ "call_now",
+ "await_input",
+ "terminal"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / mcp_next_callAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ },
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "arguments": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "payload": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "payload"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "name",
+ "arguments"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / mcp_next_toolAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ },
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "arguments": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "payload": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "payload"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "tool_name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "tool_name",
+ "arguments"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / required_user_inputsAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Output schema / properties / workflow_expires_atAdded value: +{
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / workflow_idAdded value: +{
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / workflow_statusAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}mvr_decision_check7 fields changedOutput schema / properties / continuation_dispositionAdded value: +{
+ "enum": [
+ "call_now",
+ "await_input",
+ "terminal"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / mcp_next_callAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ },
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "arguments": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "payload": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "payload"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "name",
+ "arguments"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / mcp_next_toolAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ },
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "arguments": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "payload": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "payload"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "tool_name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "tool_name",
+ "arguments"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / required_user_inputsAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Output schema / properties / workflow_expires_atAdded value: +{
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / workflow_idAdded value: +{
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / workflow_statusAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}mvr_entity_resolve7 fields changedOutput schema / properties / continuation_dispositionAdded value: +{
+ "enum": [
+ "call_now",
+ "await_input",
+ "terminal"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / mcp_next_callAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ },
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "arguments": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "payload": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "payload"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "name",
+ "arguments"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / mcp_next_toolAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ },
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "arguments": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "payload": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "payload"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "tool_name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "tool_name",
+ "arguments"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / required_user_inputsAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Output schema / properties / workflow_expires_atAdded value: +{
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / workflow_idAdded value: +{
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / workflow_statusAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}mvr_evidence_completeness7 fields changedOutput schema / properties / continuation_dispositionAdded value: +{
+ "enum": [
+ "call_now",
+ "await_input",
+ "terminal"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / mcp_next_callAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ },
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "arguments": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "payload": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "payload"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "name",
+ "arguments"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / mcp_next_toolAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ },
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "arguments": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "payload": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "payload"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "tool_name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "tool_name",
+ "arguments"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / required_user_inputsAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Output schema / properties / workflow_expires_atAdded value: +{
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / workflow_idAdded value: +{
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / workflow_statusAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}mvr_first_call8 fields changedOutput schema / properties / continuation_dispositionAdded value: +{
+ "enum": [
+ "call_now",
+ "await_input",
+ "terminal"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / mcp_next_callAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ },
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "arguments": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "payload": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "payload"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "name",
+ "arguments"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / mcp_next_tool / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ },
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "arguments": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "payload": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "payload"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "tool_name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "tool_name",
+ "arguments"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+]Output schema / properties / mcp_next_tool / typeRemoved value: -"object"Output schema / properties / required_user_inputsAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Output schema / properties / workflow_expires_atAdded value: +{
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / workflow_idAdded value: +{
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / workflow_statusAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}mvr_first_call5 fields changedInput schema / properties / evidence_available / descriptionAdded value: +"Unstructured evidence labels only. These are not counted as structured proof."Input schema / properties / evidence_itemsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Alias for evidence_pack.",
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Input schema / properties / evidence_packAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Structured evidence items with source date, source class, geography, and provenance.",
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Output schema / properties / codeAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / evidence_receivedAdded value: +{
+ "type": "object"
+}mvr_context_compile2 fields changedOutput schema / properties / mvr_response_receipt / properties / mcp_protocol_versionsAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Output schema / properties / mvr_response_receipt / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "receipt_schema_version",
- "mcp_tool",
- "core_api_version",
- "mcp_contract_version",
- "tool_profile_version",
- "sdk_version",
- "policy_version",
- "calibration_version",
- "deployment_revision",
- "host_recipe_version",
- "authority_boundary"
-]New value: +[
+ "receipt_schema_version",
+ "mcp_tool",
+ "core_api_version",
+ "mcp_protocol_versions",
+ "mcp_contract_version",
+ "tool_profile_version",
+ "sdk_version",
+ "policy_version",
+ "calibration_version",
+ "deployment_revision",
+ "host_recipe_version",
+ "authority_boundary"
+]mvr_decision_check2 fields changedOutput schema / properties / mvr_response_receipt / properties / mcp_protocol_versionsAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Output schema / properties / mvr_response_receipt / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "receipt_schema_version",
- "mcp_tool",
- "core_api_version",
- "mcp_contract_version",
- "tool_profile_version",
- "sdk_version",
- "policy_version",
- "calibration_version",
- "deployment_revision",
- "host_recipe_version",
- "authority_boundary"
-]New value: +[
+ "receipt_schema_version",
+ "mcp_tool",
+ "core_api_version",
+ "mcp_protocol_versions",
+ "mcp_contract_version",
+ "tool_profile_version",
+ "sdk_version",
+ "policy_version",
+ "calibration_version",
+ "deployment_revision",
+ "host_recipe_version",
+ "authority_boundary"
+]mvr_entity_resolve2 fields changedOutput schema / properties / mvr_response_receipt / properties / mcp_protocol_versionsAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Output schema / properties / mvr_response_receipt / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "receipt_schema_version",
- "mcp_tool",
- "core_api_version",
- "mcp_contract_version",
- "tool_profile_version",
- "sdk_version",
- "policy_version",
- "calibration_version",
- "deployment_revision",
- "host_recipe_version",
- "authority_boundary"
-]New value: +[
+ "receipt_schema_version",
+ "mcp_tool",
+ "core_api_version",
+ "mcp_protocol_versions",
+ "mcp_contract_version",
+ "tool_profile_version",
+ "sdk_version",
+ "policy_version",
+ "calibration_version",
+ "deployment_revision",
+ "host_recipe_version",
+ "authority_boundary"
+]mvr_evidence_completeness2 fields changedOutput schema / properties / mvr_response_receipt / properties / mcp_protocol_versionsAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Output schema / properties / mvr_response_receipt / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "receipt_schema_version",
- "mcp_tool",
- "core_api_version",
- "mcp_contract_version",
- "tool_profile_version",
- "sdk_version",
- "policy_version",
- "calibration_version",
- "deployment_revision",
- "host_recipe_version",
- "authority_boundary"
-]New value: +[
+ "receipt_schema_version",
+ "mcp_tool",
+ "core_api_version",
+ "mcp_protocol_versions",
+ "mcp_contract_version",
+ "tool_profile_version",
+ "sdk_version",
+ "policy_version",
+ "calibration_version",
+ "deployment_revision",
+ "host_recipe_version",
+ "authority_boundary"
+]mvr_first_call2 fields changedOutput schema / properties / mvr_response_receipt / properties / mcp_protocol_versionsAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Output schema / properties / mvr_response_receipt / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "receipt_schema_version",
- "mcp_tool",
- "core_api_version",
- "mcp_contract_version",
- "tool_profile_version",
- "sdk_version",
- "policy_version",
- "calibration_version",
- "deployment_revision",
- "host_recipe_version",
- "authority_boundary"
-]New value: +[
+ "receipt_schema_version",
+ "mcp_tool",
+ "core_api_version",
+ "mcp_protocol_versions",
+ "mcp_contract_version",
+ "tool_profile_version",
+ "sdk_version",
+ "policy_version",
+ "calibration_version",
+ "deployment_revision",
+ "host_recipe_version",
+ "authority_boundary"
+]mvr_african_market_insightsmvr_commercial_handshakemvr_context_compile1 field changedOutput schema / properties / mvr_response_receiptAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "authority_boundary": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "calibration_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "core_api_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "deployment_revision": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "host_recipe_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "mcp_contract_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "mcp_tool": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "policy_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "receipt_schema_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "sdk_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "tool_profile_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "receipt_schema_version",
+ "mcp_tool",
+ "core_api_version",
+ "mcp_contract_version",
+ "tool_profile_version",
+ "sdk_version",
+ "policy_version",
+ "calibration_version",
+ "deployment_revision",
+ "host_recipe_version",
+ "authority_boundary"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}mvr_decision_check1 field changedOutput schema / properties / mvr_response_receiptAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "authority_boundary": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "calibration_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "core_api_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "deployment_revision": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "host_recipe_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "mcp_contract_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "mcp_tool": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "policy_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "receipt_schema_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "sdk_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "tool_profile_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "receipt_schema_version",
+ "mcp_tool",
+ "core_api_version",
+ "mcp_contract_version",
+ "tool_profile_version",
+ "sdk_version",
+ "policy_version",
+ "calibration_version",
+ "deployment_revision",
+ "host_recipe_version",
+ "authority_boundary"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}mvr_entity_resolve1 field changedOutput schema / properties / mvr_response_receiptAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "authority_boundary": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "calibration_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "core_api_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "deployment_revision": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "host_recipe_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "mcp_contract_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "mcp_tool": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "policy_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "receipt_schema_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "sdk_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "tool_profile_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "receipt_schema_version",
+ "mcp_tool",
+ "core_api_version",
+ "mcp_contract_version",
+ "tool_profile_version",
+ "sdk_version",
+ "policy_version",
+ "calibration_version",
+ "deployment_revision",
+ "host_recipe_version",
+ "authority_boundary"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}mvr_evidence_completeness1 field changedOutput schema / properties / mvr_response_receiptAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "authority_boundary": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "calibration_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "core_api_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "deployment_revision": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "host_recipe_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "mcp_contract_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "mcp_tool": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "policy_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "receipt_schema_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "sdk_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "tool_profile_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "receipt_schema_version",
+ "mcp_tool",
+ "core_api_version",
+ "mcp_contract_version",
+ "tool_profile_version",
+ "sdk_version",
+ "policy_version",
+ "calibration_version",
+ "deployment_revision",
+ "host_recipe_version",
+ "authority_boundary"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}mvr_first_call1 field changedOutput schema / properties / mvr_response_receiptAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "authority_boundary": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "calibration_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "core_api_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "deployment_revision": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "host_recipe_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "mcp_contract_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "mcp_tool": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "policy_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "receipt_schema_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "sdk_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "tool_profile_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "receipt_schema_version",
+ "mcp_tool",
+ "core_api_version",
+ "mcp_contract_version",
+ "tool_profile_version",
+ "sdk_version",
+ "policy_version",
+ "calibration_version",
+ "deployment_revision",
+ "host_recipe_version",
+ "authority_boundary"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}mvr_first_call2 fields changedOutput schema / properties / example_next_requestAdded value: +{
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / properties / mcp_next_toolAdded value: +{
+ "type": "object"
+}mvr_first_call3 fields changedOutput schema / properties / decision_domainAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / max_safe_action_available_nowAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / next_three_unlocksAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}mvr_decision_check4 fields changedOutput schema / properties / live_mvr_scoring_executedAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Output schema / properties / not_a_verdictAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Output schema / properties / sandbox_evaluation_scopeAdded value: +{
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / properties / verification_basisAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}mvr_evidence_completeness1 field changedOutput schema / properties / verification_basisAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}mvr_decision_check4 fields changedInput schema / properties / payload / properties / evidence_pack / items / properties / evidence_originAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Alias for source_class.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / payload / properties / evidence_pack / items / properties / load_bearingAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / payload / properties / evidence_pack / items / properties / source_classAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Evidence origin family.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / payload / properties / evidence_pack / items / properties / verification_status / enumAdded value: +[
+ "unverified",
+ "verified",
+ "independently_verified",
+ "corroborated",
+ "attested",
+ "confirmed",
+ "validated"
+]mvr_evidence_completeness7 fields changedInput schema / properties / payload / properties / evidence_pack / items / properties / evidence_originAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Alias for source_class when the host uses evidence-origin terminology.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / payload / properties / evidence_pack / items / properties / load_bearingAdded value: +{
+ "description": "True when this item materially supports the target recommendation.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / payload / properties / evidence_pack / items / properties / source_classAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Origin family, for example entity_reported, structured_field_research, regulator_published, or counterparty_reference.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / payload / properties / evidence_pack / items / properties / verification_status / enumAdded value: +[
+ "unverified",
+ "verified",
+ "independently_verified",
+ "corroborated",
+ "attested",
+ "confirmed",
+ "validated"
+]Output schema / properties / unverified_evidence_countAdded value: +{
+ "type": "number"
+}Output schema / properties / verified_evidence_countAdded value: +{
+ "type": "number"
+}Output schema / properties / verified_source_familiesAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Claiming 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!
Read-only checks for proposed orders against evidence and policy; no trading or payment authority.
Read-only, deterministic AI triage and readiness tools implementing Sophon's published rubrics.
Read-only pre-sign evidence for onchain agents: route quality, MEV exposure, clear/caution verdict.
Read-only paper risk evidence and policy-gated committed event research. No real orders.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool occupies a distinct workflow stage: preflight, entity resolution, evidence completeness, context compilation, and decision routing. However, evidence gaps are checked by both mvr_first_call and mvr_evidence_completeness, and mvr_decision_check also references missing proof, creating mild boundary overlap.
All tools share a consistent mvr_ prefix and snake_case style, which aids recognition. The suffix pattern is slightly inconsistent—some are noun_verb (entity_resolve, context_compile, decision_check) while first_call and evidence_completeness use different grammatical forms—but the overall pattern remains predictable.
Five tools is well-scoped for a public decision-governance preflight workflow. Each tool maps to a necessary phase and none feel redundant or extraneous.
The tool set covers the entire public preflight lifecycle: initial governance check, entity resolution, evidence completeness verification, context compilation, and final routing to licensed scoring or abstention. The licensed scoring step is intentionally external, so no critical operation appears missing for the stated purpose.
