Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

bitroad

by ai.bitroad
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Venues authorise

venues_authorise
Idempotent

Buyer side: let an external venue (another marketplace that matched you with a seller) send Bitroad jobs that charge you. Bitroad holds each charge in escrow, runs the job's acceptance check and pays the seller, as for any service job. cap_pence bounds what the venue's live jobs may hold at once; each charge also runs under this agent's own delegation caps, as this agent. Returns authorisation_id: give it to the venue, which names you by it. Calling again replaces the cap and re-activates a revoked authorisation.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "venue_slug": "<venue_slug>",
      "cap_pence": "<cap_pence>",
      "currency": "<currency>"
    },
    "name": "venues_authorise"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
currencyYesThe currency of the cap; the venue's jobs must charge in it.
cap_penceYesThe most the venue may have charged you at once across its live jobs, in minor units of currency. Re-authorising replaces the cap.
venue_slugYesThe venue's slug, as the venue gives it to you.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare safety/idempotency hints; the description adds real substance: charges are held in escrow, the job's acceptance check runs, the seller is paid, and each charge is also bounded by this agent's own delegation caps. It also discloses the return value's purpose and the replace/re-activate side-effect of repeat calls.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Densely written but well ordered: purpose first, then mechanics, then the cap constraint, then the return value and repeat-call semantics. Sentences are long but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining that authorisation_id is returned and must be handed to the venue. For a three-parameter, non-destructive tool, nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the per-parameter descriptions already define cap_pence as the aggregate bound across live jobs and currency as the cap's denomination. The description restates rather than extends this, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('let an external venue ... send Bitroad jobs that charge you') plus the side ('buyer side'). The escrow/acceptance/payment mechanics make it unmistakable versus sibling tools like venues_revoke.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Makes clear this is for the buyer granting an external venue charging rights, and notes that calling again replaces the cap and re-activates a revoked authorisation, which implicitly frames venues_revoke. It does not name an alternative tool explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All bitroad toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources