Read AFMR failure modes and discover scoped attestation and lift-evidence contracts.
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: one returns canonical AFMR specs, two return specific contracts (lift evidence and reputation attestation), and one looks up failure modes. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: discover_afmr, get_lift_evidence_contract, get_reputation_attestation_contract, lookup_failure_mode. No deviations or mixed conventions.
Four tools are well-scoped for a discovery service. Each tool earns its place, covering key functions without being too few or too many.
The tool set covers the main aspects of AFMR discovery: general specs, two key contracts, and failure mode lookup. There are no obvious gaps for the stated domain.
Return canonical AFMR specifications, registries, schemas, endpoints, and scope boundaries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds context by specifying exactly what is returned: 'specifications, registries, schemas, endpoints, and scope boundaries.' This goes beyond annotations to clarify the scope of information provided, which is important for the agent to understand the tool's behavior. No contradictions.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the action ('Return') and resource details. Every word is informative, with no wasted or redundant phrasing. It achieves maximum clarity with minimal length.
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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the key return categories (specifications, registries, schemas, endpoints, scope boundaries). It is moderately complete, though it could be slightly enhanced by specifying the expected format (e.g., JSON object) or that the response is exhaustive due to openWorldHint=false. However, the current level is adequate for agent understanding.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to add parameter information since there are none, and it does not repeat schema details. The score reflects that no additional value is needed for parameters.
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 the specific verb 'Return' and resource 'canonical AFMR specifications, registries, schemas, endpoints, and scope boundaries,' clearly stating the tool's action and output. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_lift_evidence_contract' and 'lookup_failure_mode' which retrieve specific contracts or failure records, while 'discover_afmr' provides a broad, canonical overview.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings or when not to use it. However, given its read-only and comprehensive nature (openWorldHint=false), it is implied that it should be used when a complete canonical reference of AFMR resources is needed. No exclusions or alternatives are provided, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return the stable configuration-scoped public-card schema and empty public index; no results are asserted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying that the public index is empty and no results are asserted. No contradictions.
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?
A single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word 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?
Given zero parameters, comprehensive annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately describes the return value (schema and empty index) and behavioral constraints. Nothing 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?
No parameters exist, so the description carries no burden there. However, it adds value by describing what the return output contains (schema and empty index), which is useful for an agent.
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 states the tool returns a specific resource: the stable configuration-scoped public-card schema and empty public index. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like discover_afmr or lookup_failure_mode. No tautology.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like get_reputation_attestation_contract and lookup_failure_mode, explicit usage hints would help but are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return the portable attestation, trust-profile, verifier-result, endpoint-registry, and lifecycle contracts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotent, read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns a specific set of contracts, which is useful beyond 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 a single clear sentence, front-loading the key information. Slight improvement possible with more structure, but effective.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately specifies what is returned. It is complete for a simple retrieval tool.
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?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info, and the baseline is 4.
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 states the tool returns specific contracts (portable attestation, trust-profile, verifier-result, endpoint-registry, lifecycle contracts), distinguishing it from siblings like 'discover_afmr' and 'lookup_failure_mode'.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, the description lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Find exact AFMR 1.0 failure-mode records by permanent ID or bounded text query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Exact permanent family identifier, for example AFMR-F010. | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | Text matched against ID, name, definition, and class. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds limited behavioral context. The phrase 'exact' and 'bounded text query' aligns with idempotent behavior but doesn't reveal details like pagination or search boundaries beyond schema constraints.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word serves a purpose. No filler.
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 simple tool (3 params, no output schema, full annotations), the description covers core usage. It lacks details on return format or relationship to other tools, but completeness is adequate for a read-only lookup with rich schema annotations.
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?
The description mentions 'permanent ID' and 'bounded text query', mapping to id and query parameters. However, the limit parameter (with default 5, max 10) is not explained beyond what the schema provides (default, min, max). With 67% schema coverage, the description adds some but not full compensation.
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 states the verb 'Find', the resource 'AFMR failure-mode records', and the two methods: by permanent ID or bounded text query. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like discover_afmr, which likely serves broader discovery.
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 implies use for exact lookups but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like discover_afmr or the other sibling tools. No guidance on when not to use or what contexts are appropriate.
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.
discover_afmrget_lift_evidence_contractget_reputation_attestation_contractlookup_failure_modeRead Foundation-signed, offline-verifiable CGR agent-reputation attestations. No install.
Verify artifacts, hand off public state, and record, check and find evidence about capabilities.
Analyzes delegated AI payment authority and exposes supported Stripe/x402 evidence contracts.
Governed MCP: agent audit, provenance, deterministic checks, and receipt-backed FragGate execution.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
