Skip to main content
Glama

AxioRank: Zero-Trust for AI Agents

by com.axiorank

Check a held tool call

axiorank_check_approval
Read-onlyIdempotent

Poll the verdict of a held (hold) tool call. Pass the approvalId returned by axiorank_score_tool_call. Blocks briefly server-side and returns as soon as an operator approves/denies; otherwise returns the still-pending status so you can call again. Requires the gateway:write scope and the same agent key that made the original call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
approvalIdYesThe approvalId returned by axiorank_score_tool_call when the decision was 'hold'.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral details beyond annotations: it blocks briefly server-side, returns as soon as operator acts, and returns 'pending' if not yet decided. This aligns with and enhances the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, usage instruction, and behavioral details. No redundant words; front-loaded with the core action.

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 simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, usage trigger, return behavior, and authentication requirements.

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?

The only parameter approvalId is documented in the input schema with description referencing axiorank_score_tool_call. The tool description also mentions that the ID comes from that call, but adds no further semantic detail. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool polls the verdict of a held tool call, specifying the action (poll), resource (held tool call), and the source of the approvalId. This effectively distinguishes it from siblings as it references axiorank_score_tool_call which initiates the hold.

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 indicates when to use it (after axiorank_score_tool_call returns a hold decision) and what to do if pending (call again). It also mentions required scope and same agent key, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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

All AxioRank: Zero-Trust for AI Agents 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, covering different aspects of agent, policy, incident, and threat management with no overlap. Tools like axiorank_list_agents and axiorank_get_agent are differentiated by list vs. get, and quarantine vs. revoke serve different use cases.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent 'axiorank_verb_noun' pattern in snake_case, making it easy to predict tool names based on action and resource. No mixing of conventions or abbreviations.

Tool Count4/5

With 22 tools, the server covers a comprehensive security governance domain. While slightly above the typical 'well-scoped' range, each tool serves a specific function and the count is justified by the breadth of features (agents, policies, incidents, scoring, verification, audit).

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers agent and policy lifecycle (CRUD except delete), incident querying, scoring, verification, and audit. Minor gaps include missing delete operations for policies and incidents, and no way to update incident status. However, the core workflows are well-supported.

Resources