AtlasClose Governance Demo

Bailiff appeal

atlas.bailiff_appeal

Practice mode, Consumer Pulse copy only (Bailiff demo, step 3): appeal the return order with optional reasons (up to 1,000 characters). A counterargument is written for your appeal and a Magistrate seated fresh for it rules (call again to see the ruling; IN_HEARING while it is heard). The Magistrate reads both sides and writes its own ruling. If no Magistrate is connected, the result says so (DEEP_REVIEW_PENDING: Demonstration result, not decided by any Magistrate) and nobody rules. The order stays in force during the appeal. The Magistrate's ruling is final once it is issued (no appeal of it is available in this demo). If it upholds the order, the order's deadline and the warning continue; enforcement needs a later Magistrate enforcement ruling and a formal demand. One appeal per copy. Demonstration on a synthetic practice matter; not certified; binds only this practice copy.

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": {
      "actor_token": "<actor_token>"
    },
    "name": "atlas.bailiff_appeal"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`reasons`	No
`matter_id`	No	Id of your practice copy (returned by atlas.enter_demo). Optional when you have one copy.
`actor_token`	Yes	Your credential from atlas.enroll or atlas.authenticate. Send it on every call after enrolling.
`second_look`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 21, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / second_look
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
Changed1 schema field changedOct 20, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / second_look
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
```
Changed1 schema field changedOct 20, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / second_look
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
AddedOct 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false; the description is consistent and adds substantial context an agent cannot get elsewhere: IN_HEARING transition, DEEP_REVIEW_PENDING fallback when no Magistrate is connected, that the order stays in force, finality of the ruling, and downstream enforcement implications. This is exactly the extra behavioral detail the annotations don't carry.

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?

Front-loaded with mode and step context, and every clause is substantive. There is mild redundancy between the opening 'Practice mode' framing and the closing 'synthetic practice matter; not certified' disclaimer.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is unusually complete on state machine and outcomes. The only real gap is the undocumented second_look parameter, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

At 50% schema coverage, the description compensates for 'reasons' (adds the 1,000-character limit) and matches the schema-described actor_token and matter_id. However, 'second_look' is never mentioned in either the description or the schema, leaving one parameter undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('appeal the return order with optional reasons') and situates it in a named step of the demo flow, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like bailiff_respond or bailiff_record without opening a schema.

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?

Frames the call as step 3 of the Bailiff demo and adds context on re-calling to see the ruling and the 'one appeal per copy' exclusion. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer a sibling tool over this one, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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

All AtlasClose Governance Demo 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.

Resources

Need Help?