Skip to main content
Glama

TunnelMind Data API

by ai.tunnelmind

attributes_lookup

P73 fast attributes endpoint (PIP-PLAN P3): a full POST /v1/verify resolve fans out across four lenses (~2s) — fine for preflight, fatal inside a per-request authorization loop. This endpoint serves the last-known signed bundle from a single KV read, with the P69 freshness contract deciding how much to trust it.

Use this tool when:

  • A policy decision point (OPA, Cerbos, Cedar) needs node attributes on its hot path and can tolerate valid_until-bounded staleness.

  • An agent re-checks a node it (or anyone) verified recently.

Inputs:

  • node (path, required): IPv4 address, domain, ASN (AS64500), or entity_slug — same grammar as /v1/verify.

Returns:

  • The exact verify bundle last cached for the node (lens blocks, cross_lens verdict, coverage with valid_until / stale_if_error, signed receipt), plus attributes_meta: cached_at and freshness — fresh (inside valid_until) or stale (past it, still inside the stale_if_error window; the contract says a consumer may use it rather than fail closed).

  • 404 when nothing is cached — the node was never verified, or its bundle aged past stale_if_error. POST /v1/verify to (re)observe.

  • The short-lived sigil_token from the original verify is never included: bearer capabilities are not re-served.

Cost:

  • Counts as one request against the daily rate limit.

Latency:

  • Typical: <100ms (one KV read, no lens fan-out).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeYes

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses read-only nature, KV read, returns cached bundle with freshness meta, 404 on miss, no sigil token, cost as one request, latency <100ms. No annotations provided, so description fully covers behavioral traits.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections, but moderately verbose. Could be slightly shorter without losing clarity, but each sentence adds value.

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?

Covers inputs, returns (including error 404), cost, latency, and staleness contract. No output schema, but description explains return values comprehensively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has one parameter 'node' with no description (0% coverage). Description adds meaning by specifying allowed formats (IPv4, domain, ASN, entity_slug) and referencing /v1/verify grammar.

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?

Clearly states it's a fast attributes endpoint for node attribute lookups using a cached bundle, distinguishing it from the full /v1/verify endpoint and other sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (hot path with staleness tolerance, re-checking verified nodes) and when not to use (per-request auth loops, need for fresh verification or sigil token).

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

All TunnelMind Data API toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools overlap in purpose, such as cross_lens_verify, cross_lens_lookup, profile_entity, and preflight_should_i_act, which all return node verdicts with subtle differences. Sigil verification tools and receipt-related tools also have similar names and require deep reading to distinguish.

Naming Consistency3/5

The tool names are mostly readable, but the pattern is mixed: some use verb_noun (get_domain, create_subscription) while others use domain prefixes (sigil_*, ghostroute_*, intel_*). Within each domain, naming is consistent, but the overall style lacks uniformity.

Tool Count1/5

With 90 tools, this server is extremely overloaded. Even for a multi-purpose data API, the sheer number overwhelms and makes navigation difficult, far exceeding the typical well-scoped MCP server. The count is an extreme mismatch for the apparent scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is very comprehensive, covering tracker lookup, cross-lens verification, receipts, compliance, subscriptions, tasks, intel probes, and more. Minor gaps exist, such as no batch cross-lens verification, but core workflows are well covered.

Resources