governance-platform

validate

Validate structured data against a Blueprint's rules BEFORE the result is used. Returns PASS, FAIL, or REVIEW with plain-language findings, repair suggestions, a determinism hash, and a re-verifiable certificate. Same input + same rules = same verdict, every time.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`api_key`	Yes	GeodesicAI API key (gai_...)
`blueprint`	No	Blueprint name (workflow_name) to use	default
`source_text`	No	Optional. The text of the document the fields were extracted from. When the Blueprint has a source check, extracted values are compared against this text. It is used for the check only and is not stored
`structured_data`	Yes	The document's extracted fields as key/value pairs. Keys are open by design - your Blueprint's rules define what is checked

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 13, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / source_text

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Optional. The text of the document the fields were extracted from. When the Blueprint has a source check, extracted values are compared against this text. It is used for the check only and is not stored",
+  "title": "Source Text"
+}

Changed3 schema fields changedJul 30, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / api_key / description
```
Added value: +"GeodesicAI API key (gai_...)"
```

addedInput schema / properties / blueprint / description

Added value: +"Blueprint name (workflow_name) to use"

addedInput schema / properties / structured_data / description

Added value: +"The document's extracted fields as key/value pairs. Keys are open by design - your Blueprint's rules define what is checked"

First observedApr 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds real behavioral value beyond the annotations: it enumerates the verdict space (PASS/FAIL/REVIEW), the accompanying artifacts (findings, repair suggestions, determinism hash, re-verifiable certificate), and a determinism guarantee. It does not clarify the side effects implied by readOnlyHint=false, such as whether the issued certificate is persisted, so the mutation profile remains slightly opaque.

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?

Short, front-loaded, and every clause carries information about the invocation contract or the return payload. The closing 'Same input + same rules = same verdict, every time' largely restates the determinism hash already named a sentence earlier, which costs a little density.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing return values and does so thoroughly. It is close to complete for a 4-parameter validation tool; the missing piece is guidance on the FAIL/REVIEW follow-up path (e.g., repair vs validate_repair) and any note on certificate persistence.

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 description coverage is 100% and each parameter is documented in-schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already supplies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (validate) and resource (structured data) with an explicit anchor to a 'Blueprint's rules', so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as validate_repair or verify_certificate, even though it mentions producing a certificate and repair suggestions.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'BEFORE the result is used' gives a clear timing cue for when to call it, which is useful. But there is no statement of when-not to use it and no named alternative (repair, validate_repair, verify_certificate) for the follow-up paths an agent would face on a FAIL verdict.

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

All governance-platform tools Inspect

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

Need Help?