Content Moderation API
Server Details
Pay-per-call profanity/explicit-content detection for AI agents. $0.005 USDC per call, no signup.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- cmondillo/tools
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Available Tools
1 toolmoderate_textBInspect
Check text for profanity/explicit terms. Costs $0.005 USDC on Base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It transparently reveals that the call costs $0.005 USDC on Base, a non-obvious side effect of invoking the tool. However, it does not describe the result shape, error behavior, or whether text is transmitted/stored.
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?
One sentence, front-loads the purpose, and adds the cost detail without waste. Every word contributes.
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 paid external tool with no output schema, the missing return-value contract is a significant gap. The agent knows what the tool does and what it costs but not what a successful response looks like or how to interpret the moderation result.
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 0% and the schema only provides the title 'Text'. The description adds that the text is checked for profanity/explicit terms, but does not specify expected format, length limits, language, or plain-vs-HTML handling, so it only partially compensates.
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 ('Check') and resource ('text') and names the exact purpose: detecting profanity/explicit terms. There are no sibling tools to differentiate against, so no differentiation is needed; it is clear and unambiguous.
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 intended use is implied by the purpose: use when text needs profanity/explicit-term moderation. There are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives, but the cost disclosure hints that it should be called with awareness of the charge.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
1 tool update
- First observed
moderate_text
Frequently Asked Questions
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 asio.github.acme/serveralso 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.jsonon 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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Pay-per-call safety checks for AI agents: screen a crypto address or URL before you transact.
Pay-per-call Open Graph/link preview metadata for AI agents. $0.01 USDC per call, no signup.
Formally verified AI safety APIs. Pay-per-call via USDC (x402). 75+ endpoints, no signup.
30 pay-per-call APIs for AI agents: compliance, trade, safety, web, data. USDC on Base via x402.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityFmaintenanceExposes 177 crypto market intelligence endpoints to AI agents with automatic USDC micropayments from the user's wallet, enabling pay-per-call access without subscriptions.5980MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceCrypto compliance tools for AI-agent payments: screen any address for sanctions, frozen-stablecoin and hacker/mixer exposure across 8+ chains, trace fund taint, and get an allow/review/decline decision before settlement. Free keyless address checks; deeper endpoints are x402-payable.68MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceLets AI agents discover, pay for, and call any HTTP API per request using USDC, with gasless nanopayments and no API keys or accounts needed.558MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI agents to access crypto/web3 data across 5 chains with pay-per-call billing in USDC via x402, no API key required, and built-in spend caps.3647MIT
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
Only a single tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusing it with other tools. The tool's purpose is clear and distinct.
The single tool follows a clear verb_noun pattern ('moderate' + 'text'), which is consistent and predictable. With only one tool, naming consistency is trivially satisfied.
The server has only 1 tool, which feels too thin for an API named 'Content Moderation API'. A typical content moderation service would include multiple modalities or operations, so the count is below what the scope suggests.
The tool only handles text profanity/explicit terms, leaving out other content types (images, video, audio) and other moderation aspects (spam, sentiment, policy compliance). This is a significant gap for a 'Content Moderation API'.