Skip to main content
Glama

AINumbers Fintech Intelligence Suite

by co.ainumbers
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Agent On-Behalf-Of (OBO) Mandate Validator

validate_agent_obo_mandate
Read-onlyIdempotent

Agent On-Behalf-Of (OBO) Mandate Validator: OpenChainGraph compute node (compliance_mandate). Deterministic OpenChainGraph compute node. By default (compute:"auto") inputs are computed server-side on Cloudflare Workers for gpu:false nodes with a registered kernel; compute:"browser" forces client-side execution and returns a browser delegation URL instead. gpu:true nodes always delegate to the browser. Inputs are processed transiently to compute the response and are not stored, logged, or retained. Use synthetic or anonymised inputs only. Exports an AP2 artifact with execution_hash for chain provenance. Consumes upstream artifacts from: art-150-mcp-tool-scope-revocation-auditor. Output feeds: art-152-mcp-task-lifecycle-validator. Open at: https://ainumbers.co/chaingraph/art-151-agent-obo-mandate-validator.html FV-status (published/proven/still-trusted for this spec): /fv-status/8498d0819c941fdb731f9e10f5d93ee929026919cb111a42149821b48b5ac180.json — a snapshot, not a subscription; this receipt verifies offline regardless of whether that file is ever fetched. Output schema: call describe_tool("validate_agent_obo_mandate").

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
computeNoCompute mode (v0.4 Compute Binding). "auto" (default) = server for gpu:false nodes with registered kernels; "server" = force server-side; "browser" = always return browser delegation URL. gpu:true nodes always delegate.
parent_hashesNoexecution_hash values from upstream ChainGraph AP2 artifacts to chain from (sets chain.parent_hashes in the export).
parent_tool_idsNotool_id values matching parent_hashes, in the same order.
policy_parametersNoInput parameters for this tool's decision function. For gpu:false nodes with a registered kernel, these are computed server-side when compute is "auto" or "server". See the tool's manifest for field names.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "gaps": {
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "has_intent": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "has_scope": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "has_subject": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "not_expired": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "verdict": {
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "gaps": {
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "has_intent": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "has_scope": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "has_subject": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "not_expired": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "verdict": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) are consistent with the description, and the text adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: server vs browser compute modes, browser-delegation-URL returns, transient processing with no storage/logging/retention, and emission of an AP2 artifact with execution_hash. It does not describe failure modes or what a failed validation returns, keeping it short of a 5.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The text is a run-on paragraph that repeats the title and the 'deterministic compute node' claim, and pads with a link plus a 64-hex FV-status receipt URL that an agent cannot act on. Useful facts (compute modes, no retention, artifact export, upstream/downstream artifacts) are buried rather than front-loaded.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a validation tool with no output schema, the description never says what a valid vs invalid OBO mandate looks like, what policy_parameters fields drive the decision, or what the artifact/receipt contains on failure. It is rich on provenance plumbing and thin on the actual validation contract.

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%, so the schema already documents compute, parent_hashes, parent_tool_ids, and policy_parameters. The description's compute-mode discussion largely restates the compute enum's own schema description, and it defers policy_parameters to 'the tool's manifest' rather than adding meaning. Baseline 3 is correct.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description identifies the resource ('Agent On-Behalf-Of (OBO) Mandate Validator') and implies a validation verb, but half the text is spent restating infrastructure ('OpenChainGraph compute node (compliance_mandate). Deterministic OpenChainGraph compute node'). It gives no clue how this differs from the many sibling validators such as validate_ap2_mandate_chain, validate_a2a_x402_mandate, or agentic_mandate_sandbox.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the numerous adjacent mandate validators. The only constraint given ('Use synthetic or anonymised inputs only') is an input restriction, not selection guidance.

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

All AINumbers Fintech Intelligence Suite 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