Values Firewall MCP Server

by humanified Your server? Claim it

not responding

Values Firewall is listed as active in the registry but did not answer our last check. It exposes 3 tools.

EU AI Act Art-14 runtime oversight: allow / flag / gate-to-human on an agent action, with receipt.

Uptime history 49 days of history · worst day 0%

49 days agonow

0.0%

Uptime 24h

0 of 91 checks

Tools

read from the server

158 ms

Response time

average over 24h

open, no key

Access

streamable-http

Values Firewall does not always answer

Over the last week it answered 72.3% of our checks. We check every 15 minutes, so you hear about the next outage within the hour — not from your users.

Connect this server

Endpoint below is the one we actually reach during checks — not the one copied from a README. Last verified 13 min ago.

Claude Code Claude Desktop Codex Cursor VS Code

run in your terminal

claude mcp add values-firewall --transport http https://vf.humanified.dk/mcp

~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "values-firewall": {
      "url": "https://vf.humanified.dk/mcp"
    }
  }
}

~/.codex/config.toml

[mcp_servers.values-firewall]
url = "https://vf.humanified.dk/mcp"

.cursor/mcp.json

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "values-firewall": {
      "url": "https://vf.humanified.dk/mcp"
    }
  }
}

.vscode/mcp.json

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "values-firewall": {
      "url": "https://vf.humanified.dk/mcp"
    }
  }
}

Available tools 3

Read directly from the server with tools/list, grouped by what they act on. If a tool disappears, we record the date.

action

check_action

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).

check_action_deterministic

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.

charter

list_charter

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).

Endpoints

URL	Transport	State	Latency	Checked
https://vf.humanified.dk/mcp	streamable-http	answering	158 ms	13 min ago

Alternatives to Values Firewall

same job, measured the same way

CrowdGap AI Probability Research

by chatgpt-super-myna-7255-crowdgap-pilot

AI-agent probability research with one-call preflight and human-gated XRP activation.

12 tools answering

ActionDock

by actiondock

Supervised API-write gateway for AI agents with policy, human approval and execution receipts.

8 tools answering

Proctor

by louissarvin

Human oversight for AI agents: block a tool call on a verified human, with on-chain proof.

27 installs/wk local only

Glyt

by glyt

Human-in-the-loop approval for agent actions, with verifiable action-bound receipts.

6 tools answering

Multimail

by multimail

Give your agent its own email address with graduated human oversight, from approval to autonomy.

46 installs/wk answering

Gateway

by sealgate

MCP gateway with runtime security policy, tool-call-level control, and audit of agent actions.

answering

InterAI Risk Oracle

by interailabs

Pre-execution policy gate for consequential agent actions with durable trust receipts.

9 tools answering

Logi Approval

by 1pass

logi Agent Approval Gate — human approval on the phone before high-risk agent actions.

25 installs/wk local only

Values Firewall — questions

Answers built from our own checks of this server.

What can Values Firewall do?

It exposes 3 tools, read directly from the server on our last check. Among them: check_action, check_action_deterministic, list_charter. The full list with descriptions is on this page — we take it from the server itself via tools/list, not from a README. How MCP servers expose tools in the first place →

Is Values Firewall working right now?

We send a real MCP handshake every 15 minutes. Over the last 24 hours 0 of 91 checks got a reply (0.0%), average response time 158 ms. The bar chart above shows every period we have measured.

The registry lists Values Firewall as active — why does it not respond?

The official MCP registry stores what the author submitted; it does not verify that the server still runs. We check the endpoint ourselves, and this one does not answer. Catalogues that copy the registry without checking will show it as working.

How do I connect Values Firewall?

Copy the ready config from this page — we generate it for Claude Code, Claude Desktop, Codex, Cursor and VS Code, each with the file path that client actually reads. It is a remote server, so there is nothing to install — the client connects to the address.

Does Values Firewall need an API key?

No. Values Firewall completed a full MCP handshake with us as an anonymous client and listed its tools without asking for anything. All 3 of them are readable on this page. This is what we observed, not what the docs claim.