AxioRank: Zero-Trust for AI Agents

Issue a short-lived agent token

axiorank_issue_token

Mint a short-lived, scoped axr_tok_… access token for an existing agent. This is the Zero-Trust credential the agent sends as Authorization: Bearer <token>. It expires within the hour and cannot be replayed afterwards. Durable static keys are issued in the dashboard, not here. Requires the keys:write scope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`scopes`	No	Operational scopes for the token (gateway:write, cards:verify, logs:read).
`agentId`	Yes	The agent's UUID (from axiorank_list_agents).
`ttlSeconds`	No	Token lifetime in seconds (60–3600). Defaults to 900 (15 min).

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive behavior (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable details: token expires within the hour, cannot be replayed, and requires specific scope. This enriches the behavioral understanding beyond the 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 concise sentences: first defines action and resource, second explains key properties (zero-trust, expiry, non-replay), third clarifies static key alternative and auth requirement. No redundant information.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, lifecycle constraints, and usage boundaries. A minor gap is the absence of return format details, but the purpose is well-understood.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description reiterates the scoped nature and mentions default ttlSeconds (15 min), but does not add substantial new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses specific verbs ('mint', 'issue') and identifies the resource as a short-lived access token for an existing agent. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'create_agent' and 'revoke_agent' by specifying its unique role and even contrasts it with static key issuance via the dashboard.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states the required scope ('keys:write') and clarifies when not to use this tool (for durable static keys, use the dashboard). It provides clear context on the token's short-lived nature and non-replayability, guiding appropriate usage.

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 tools Inspect

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

Need Help?