Agenda Intelligence MD
Server Details
Evidence-readiness MCP server: validate, audit, and score briefs, memos, and evidence packs.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- vassiliylakhonin/agenda-intelligence-md
- GitHub Stars
- 6
- Server Listing
- Agenda Intelligence
Available Tools
1 tooldual_use_technology_exportARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| shipment | Yes | ||
| dated_sources | Yes | ||
| risk_question | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| profile | Yes | |
| contract_version | Yes | |
| export_risk_triage | Yes |
TDQS
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 tool update
- First observed
dual_use_technology_export
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
MCP server providing access to the Scorecard API to evaluate and optimize LLM systems.
The evidence layer for MCP: live operational grades plus Trust Receipts for every registry server.
A paid remote MCP for CLI tool MCP, built to return verdicts, receipts, usage logs, and audit-ready
MCP-native AI evaluation: rubric audits, eval suites, and proof reports for AI/LLM output.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEvidence-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
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceMCP 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.3MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceMCP 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
- AlicenseBqualityAmaintenanceLocal-first MCP server that transforms civil case PDFs into queryable cases with structural provenance, evidence IDs, and page-level verification for drafting and factual review.22Apache 2.0
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
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.
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.
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.
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.