Skip to main content
Glama

a2a2p — Agent-to-Agent-to-Physical

by com.a2a2p

validate_domain_solutioning_result

Validate a candidate result returned under the a2a2p domain-solutioning contract. The exact output of prepare_domain_solutioning_case is a prerequisite; malformed or non-prepared cases return a versioned machine-readable recovery workflow without weakening case-shape or digest checks. The operation verifies the source-case digest and provenance shape, rejects authority promotion and intent or design-file mutation, re-screens every candidate at quote stage, and runs the deterministic engineering review only after screening allows it. A successful response content-addresses the exact candidate result and returns a copy-ready, non-automatic source binding for prepare_simulation_study; every objective, constraint, physical input, setting, and validation plan remains caller-supplied. It stores nothing, runs no solver, calls no model or supplier, applies no patch, and grants no provider, quote, order, payment, or fabrication authority.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
caseYes
resultYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nextYes
dissentYes
contractYes
authorityYes
frameworkYes
governanceYes
case_digestYes
persistenceYes
recommendationYes
digest_verifiedYes
source_contractYes
contract_versionYes
digest_semanticsYes
external_effectsYes
model_provenanceYes
simulation_handoffYes
candidate_evaluationsYes
candidate_result_digestYes
source_contract_versionYes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it succeeds: it discloses that the operation rejects authority promotion, intent/design-file mutation, re-screns at quote stage, runs review only after screening, and unconditionally grants or modifies nothing. It also states the stateless guarantees with unusual specificity.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence adds a distinct, decision-relevant behavior: purpose, failure semantics, verification, downstream handoff, and side-effect denial. It is long only because the contract’s guarantees are complex.

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 contract-validation tool with two complex state coupling the output schema and schema definings should carry the structural details, and the description covers everything the schema cannot: exact prerequisite data source, exact downstream consumer, failure-return behavior, and no-fixed effects. Nothing essential is hidden.

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?

Schema-description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It abstracts the case parameter as the exact output of prepare_domain_solutioning_case and the result as a candidate result under the same contract, which is enough to tell an agent how to construct correct state.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and object: 'Validate a candidate result returned under the a2a2p domain-solutioning contract.' It also names the exact prerequisite and downstream continuation, distinguishing it from siblings like validate_simulation_study_result.

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?

The description clearly states that the processor expects the exact output of prepare_domain_solutioning_case and that a successful result feeds prepare_simulation_study. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but for any agent aware of the pipeline this is strong situational guidance.

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 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tool clusters have near-identical names and responsibilities: prepare_derived_beam_simulation, prepare_reviewed_beam_simulation, and prepare_simulation_study all produce bounded simulation studies, while the validate_* family has five variants with subtle input differences. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent would frequently need to read an entire paragraph to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 24 tools follow the same snake_case verb_noun pattern: build_, check_, request_, validate_, prepare_, run_, upload_, etc. There are no camelCase names, no vague single-word tools, and no stylistic outliers.

Tool Count3/5

24 tools is at the heavy end of the calibration range, and a large subset of rectangular-beam preparation/validation tools could be consolidated. The broad physical-request and supplier pipeline justifies some of the count, but the overall surface still feels over-scoped.

Completeness4/5

The core workflows are covered: upload, submit, revise, status, spec review, pricing/estimates, quote-job polling, supplier package/email rendering, and a full bounded simulation loop. Missing cancellation, request listing, and actual supplier send/order actions are real but peripheral gaps rather than workflow-killing dead ends.

Resources