Skip to main content
Glama

TunnelMind Data API

by ai.tunnelmind

preflight_should_i_act

The single call an agent makes before transacting with a destination on the open web. Composes the cross-lens verdict with a bounded Tracker-presence bonus, maps the adjusted trust score to a tri-state decision (allow / caution / deny), and returns a 5-minute signed consultation receipt (sigil_token with sub: preflight:consulted).

The receipt is the load-bearing artifact: the agent attaches it to its action log as cryptographic proof that the destination was consulted before action. The decision itself is commodity-shaped; the receipt of having asked is what accountability requires.

When ait is supplied, the consultation additionally chains a witness-tier preflight:consulted event onto the ATAP AIT, signed by OAI-2026-0000201 — turning the consultation into a hash-chained, replayable artifact.

Tracker presence applies a bounded +0.05 trust bonus before decision mapping (capped at 1.0). Absence is never a penalty — most of the open web is not in the tracker corpus and that's expected.

Defaults: allow >= 0.70, caution >= 0.40, else deny. Thresholds are overridable per request; weights are inherited from cross_lens_verify.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
aitNoOptional ATAP AIT id. When present, chains a witness-tier `preflight:consulted` event onto the AIT.
nodeYesIPv4/IPv6 address, domain, ASN with optional `AS` prefix, or entity_slug.
intentNoFree-form context — recorded in the receipt, never affects the decision. Validated against /^[A-Za-z0-9._:-]{1,64}$/.
agent_idNoCaller's stable agent identifier, recorded in the receipt. Validated against /^[A-Za-z0-9._:-]{1,128}$/.
thresholdsNoOptional overrides; must satisfy 0 <= caution < allow <= 1.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the transparency burden. It goes well beyond basics by disclosing the bounded +0.05 tracker bonus, the fact that absence is never a penalty, default thresholds, override capability, the 5-minute signed receipt with sub claim, and optional AIT witness chaining.

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?

The description is denser than typical MCP tools but well-structured: purpose is front-loaded, followed by receipt rationale, AIT behavior, tracker semantics, and defaults. The 'commodity-shaped' phrasing is a bit stylistic but not wasteful.

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?

It covers decision logic, thresholds, tracker behavior, AIT chaining, receipt purpose and TTL. However, with no output schema, it does not explicitly specify the full response shape beyond sigil_token and sub, nor potential error/edge conditions, leaving slight ambiguity for a complex tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema already covers all 5 parameters with 100% coverage, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantics: default allow/caution thresholds, threshold ordering constraints, intent being recorded-but-neutral, agent_id being recorded, AIT side effects, and inherited weights from cross_lens_verify.

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?

The description states this is 'the single call an agent makes before transacting with a destination on the open web' and explains it composes a cross-lens verdict with a tracker bonus, maps to allow/caution/deny, and returns a signed receipt. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cross_lens_verify, verdict_lookup, and generate_receipt.

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?

It explicitly tells agents when to use this tool: before any transaction with an open-web destination, and frames the receipt as the load-bearing accountability artifact. It does not enumerate explicit when-not or alternative scenarios, so it stops 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 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