Skip to main content
Glama

Server Details

Evidence-readiness MCP server: validate, audit, and score briefs, memos, and evidence packs.

If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL
Repository
vassiliylakhonin/agenda-intelligence-md
GitHub Stars
6
Server Listing
Agenda Intelligence

Available Tools

1 tool
dual_use_technology_exportA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Triage dual-use technology export controls, ECCN/HS Codes, and transit route risks for unauthorized diversion. Grades the evidence you supply and names what is still missing; it does not retrieve sources, so a call that brings none is refused. With only a question and no evidence yet, start at corridor_sanctions_assistant. Evidence triage only: no factual-truth verification, no legal, compliance, sanctions, or financial advice. Human review is required before any commercial action.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
shipmentYes
dated_sourcesYes
risk_questionYes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
profileYes
contract_versionYes
export_risk_triageYes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive annotations, the description discloses that the tool does not retrieve sources, does not verify factual truth, provides no legal/compliance/financial advice, and requires human review before commercial action. It also explains the grading behavior and missing-evidence refusal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, behavioral boundary, refusal condition, alternative routing, and scope exclusions. The purpose is front-loaded and the description remains tightly structured despite covering several distinct constraints.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description, together with the detailed schema and read-only annotations, provides enough context for safe invocation. Minor gaps remain around parameter-level semantics, especially risk_question and optional shipment fields, but the output schema and structured input schema cover much of the remaining detail.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it partially does: it highlights ECCN/HS codes and transit risks, which map to shipment properties, and emphasizes dated evidence. However, it never explains risk_question or the exact semantics of shipment's required fields, leaving some ambiguity for a 3-parameter nested request.

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 description states a specific action and area: 'Triage dual-use technology export controls, ECCN/HS Codes, and transit route risks for unauthorized diversion.' It also differentiates itself from corridor_sanctions_assistant by clarifying this tool grades supplied evidence rather than retrieving sources.

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?

The description explicitly says the tool refuses calls without sources, and that users with only a question and no evidence should start at corridor_sanctions_assistant. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with a named alternative.

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. 1 tool update
    • First observeddual_use_technology_export

Frequently Asked Questions

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Evidence-first delivery audit MCP server that evaluates task requirements against delivery evidence and returns a reproducible pass/needs_review/fail decision with a deterministic receipt.
    MIT
  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    MCP server for Tru8 Evidence Research that enables AI agents to submit claims or URLs and receive source-traced evidence organized by tier and type with element decomposition and relationship mapping.
    3
    MIT
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    MCP server for AI compliance auditing. Scores agent outputs for hallucination liability under the EU AI Act, issues verifiable compliance stamps, and tracks audit history by agent.
    MIT
Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion or overlap. The tool's description clearly defines its specific purpose of triaging dual-use technology export controls.

Naming Consistency5/5

With a single tool, there are no inconsistencies to evaluate. The name 'dual_use_technology_export' is descriptive and follows snake_case conventions, which is clear and unambiguous.

Tool Count3/5

A single tool is on the lower end of the acceptable range. While the tool is substantial and not trivial, the server feels thin with only one function, making this a borderline case.

Completeness4/5

The tool explicitly scopes itself to evidence triage only and clearly states what it does not do (source retrieval, legal advice). Within that narrow scope, it appears complete, though the lack of any complementary tools (e.g., source lookup) is a minor gap.