HANRIA agent mandate check

Check a mandate for errors

validate_mandate

Read-onlyIdempotent

Call this after writing or editing a mandate, before relying on it. Returns valid true or false with the reason: schema errors, clauses that can never run because an earlier clause already decides them, unbounded prefixes, credential material, and expiry. An invalid mandate makes every check_action call answer error. Once per mandate version is enough; there is no need to call it before every check_action. Free, and it keeps no request content. Docs: https://hanria.ai/llms.txt

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mandate`	Yes	An operator-authored statement of what an agent may do. Written by a person, read by an agent, evaluated locally. A mandate is advisory: it describes intended authority and supports a local check, but it does not enforce anything. Enforcement requires a component that exclusively holds the credentials and can refuse.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`valid`	Yes
`reason`	Yes
`clauses`	No
`expired`	No	True when not_valid_after has passed; check_action then denies everything.
`mandate_ref`	No
`mandate_digest`	No	SHA-256 of the mandate's canonical JSON; receipts carry the same value.
`schema_version`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 2, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "clauses": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "expired": {
+      "description": "True when not_valid_after has passed; check_action then denies everything.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "mandate_digest": {
+      "description": "SHA-256 of the mandate's canonical JSON; receipts carry the same value.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "mandate_ref": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "reason": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "schema_version": {
+      "const": "0.1-draft",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "valid": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "schema_version",
+    "valid",
+    "reason"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedOct 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds non-structured traits: it is free, retains no request content, and enumerates the exact error classes it reports (schema errors, unreachable clauses, unbounded prefixes, credential material, expiry). It also explains the consequence of an invalid mandate on check_action, which is real behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and timing, then the error taxonomy, then frequency and cost. Dense but mostly purposeful; the docs link and the return-value mention are slightly redundant given the output schema exists, but nothing is bloated.

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?

For a validation tool with a rich nested schema and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: when to call, what it detects, the downstream consequence, and cost/privacy. Return format is already handled by the output schema.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the mandate object in depth (including the credential-material caveat and prefix-matching semantics). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Check a mandate for errors') and clarifies it validates a mandate rather than an action, which cleanly separates it from the sibling check_action. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit timing ('after writing or editing a mandate, before relying on it'), an exclusion ('no need to call it before every check_action'), and a frequency rule ('once per mandate version is enough'). This is unusually complete routing guidance.

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

All HANRIA agent mandate check 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?