a2a2p — Agent-to-Agent-to-Physical

validate_actualization_plan

Re-run the exact Domain Solutioning case/result validation, then validate one caller-supplied Actualization Plan. Checks typed entity references, evidence references, decision cycles, source binding, and false authority. Success returns evidence linkage plus exact review_specification calls for unblocked fabricated parts, copied only from each caller-authored function and specification_patch. Rejection can append a tamper-evident correction entry to caller-held history. Stores, edits, and executes nothing; calls no model, provider, or supplier; grants no physical authority.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "case": "<case>",
      "result": "<result>",
      "plan": "<plan>"
    },
    "name": "validate_actualization_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`case`	Yes
`plan`	Yes	A portable, non-authorizing projection of one validated domain-solutioning candidate into named physical-work entities. It is not a generic graph ontology.
`result`	Yes
`correction_history`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 9, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / correction_history

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "action": {
+        "maxLength": 2000,
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "pattern": "\\S",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "contract": {
+        "const": "a2a2p.actualization-plan-recovery"
+      },
+      "contract_version": {
+        "const": "0.1.0-draft"
+      },
+      "entry_digest": {
+        "pattern": "^[a-f0-9]{64}$",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "field": {
+        "maxLength": 2000,
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "pattern": "\\S",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "previous_entry_digest": {
+        "pattern": "^[a-f0-9]{64}$",
+        "type": [
+          "string",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "reason_code": {
+        "enum": [
+          "authority_promotion",
+          "contract_mismatch",
+          "correction_history_invalid",
+          "dependency_cycle",
+          "duplicate_entity_id",
+          "evidence_kind_invalid",
+          "evidence_reference_missing",
+          "input_too_large",
+          "invalid_plan_shape",
+          "source_binding_mismatch",
+          "unknown_entity_reference",
+          "upstream_validation_failed"
+        ]
+      },
+      "rejected_plan_digest": {
+        "pattern": "^[a-f0-9]{64}$",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "sequence": {
+        "maximum": 100,
+        "minimum": 1,
+        "type": "integer"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "contract",
+      "contract_version",
+      "sequence",
+      "reason_code",
+      "field",
+      "action",
+      "rejected_plan_digest",
+      "previous_entry_digest",
+      "entry_digest"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 100,
+  "type": "array"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / plan / x-a2a2p-rejection-reasons

Previous value: -[
-  "authority_promotion",
-  "contract_mismatch",
-  "dependency_cycle",
-  "duplicate_entity_id",
-  "evidence_kind_invalid",
-  "evidence_reference_missing",
-  "input_too_large",
-  "invalid_plan_shape",
-  "source_binding_mismatch",
-  "unknown_entity_reference",
-  "upstream_validation_failed"
-]New value: +[
+  "authority_promotion",
+  "contract_mismatch",
+  "correction_history_invalid",
+  "dependency_cycle",
+  "duplicate_entity_id",
+  "evidence_kind_invalid",
+  "evidence_reference_missing",
+  "input_too_large",
+  "invalid_plan_shape",
+  "source_binding_mismatch",
+  "unknown_entity_reference",
+  "upstream_validation_failed"
+]

AddedSep 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: 'Stores, edits, and executes nothing; calls no model, provider, or supplier; grants no physical authority' and notes the only possible side effect (appending a tamper-evident correction entry to caller-held history). It also states the return value (evidence linkage and review_specification calls). This is exemplary for a read-only validation tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Every sentence in the four-sentence description earns its place: the main action, the validation scope, the return/behavior, and the boundary. It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids redundancy, striking an ideal balance between completeness and brevity.

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?

Given the plan schema's complexity (nested objects, many fields, rejection reasons), the description delivers a complete operational picture: what it validates, what it returns, side effects, and non-effects. It omits only details already present in the schema (e.g., rejection reason list) and the optional correction_history parameter, which is acceptable since the schema carries that burden.

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 has only 25% description coverage, but the description compensates by conveying that `case` and `result` are the same artifacts from the prior Domain Solutioning validation, and that `plan` is 'caller-supplied' with fabricated parts 'copied only from each caller-authored function and specification_patch.' This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it doesn't detail the `correction_history` parameter beyond the implied history append.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Re-run the exact Domain Solutioning case/result validation, then validate one caller-supplied Actualization Plan.' It lists concrete validation checks (typed entity references, evidence references, decision cycles, source binding, false authority) and distinguishes from sibling tools like validate_domain_solutioning_result by framing it as a subsequent step on the plan.

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 clearly states the trigger (after domain solutioning validation) and the target (a caller-supplied Actualization Plan). It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or say when not to use, but the context is unambiguous given the sibling list and the phrase 'then validate' implying a sequence.

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

All a2a2p — Agent-to-Agent-to-Physical 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.