Bidda Sovereign Intelligence

create_attestation

Create a signed, time-stamped record of which Bidda rules a person or AI agent relied on for a decision. Returns a record ID and a public verify URL so anyone can later confirm the record has not been changed. Useful for agents that must keep an audit trail of what they checked. Requires an active Bidda subscription: pass api_key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`agent`	Yes	The system or AI agent that made the decision.
`nodes`	Yes	node_ids that were checked (max 50).
`action`	No	Optional: what the agent did.
`api_key`	No	Optional. Your Bidda subscription key. Prefer sending it as the x-bidda-api-key header (or Authorization: Bearer), which is what the auth settings in your MCP client configure; the header takes precedence over this argument. A free trial counts.
`workflow_steps_followed`	No	Optional: steps the agent followed.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is covered. The description adds meaningful context: the subscription requirement, the public verify URL, and the implication of immutability ('confirm the record has not been changed'). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is compact—four short sentences, each with a distinct purpose: what it creates, what it returns, typical use, and a prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids filler. Slightly longer than two sentences but still efficient.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers the core outcome (returned record ID and verify URL), the prerequisite (subscription), and the general use case. It omits edge cases, error behavior, and the sibling differentiation, but those are not critical for basic invocation. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any detail about agent or nodes beyond what the schema provides. It only mentions api_key in the context of subscription, which is already elaborated in the schema parameter description (including header precedence). Thus, it adds minimal extra semantic value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb-resource pair: 'create a signed, time-stamped record of which Bidda rules...'. It also explains what is returned (record ID and verify URL). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling create_control_attestation, leaving the agent to infer the difference from the name alone.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives a clear use case ('useful for agents that must keep an audit trail') and mentions a prerequisite (Bidda subscription). But it offers no explicit comparison to alternatives, nor any 'when not to use' guidance. The sibling create_control_attestation is never referenced, so selection between them is left implicit.

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

All Bidda Sovereign Intelligence 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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes. The few overlapping pairs (get_node vs consult_node, get_latest_changes vs obligation_deltas) are explicitly differentiated in their descriptions, so an agent should be able to select correctly. No tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency3/5

The majority of tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (get_node, create_attestation, seal_run). However, several tools deviate significantly: drift_check and gap_check put the noun first, obligation_deltas is a bare noun, and point_in_time and oscal_assessment_results are noun phrases without a verb. This inconsistency makes the set feel less predictable.

Tool Count3/5

At 25 tools, this is at the heavy end of the range. However, the tool set covers a very broad compliance intelligence domain, including discovery, compliance checks, run management, attestations, and change feeds. Each tool has a clear role, but the sheer number may overwhelm agents that need only a subset of functionality.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is very comprehensive for a compliance intelligence platform. It covers discovery (browse, search, list, get), action compliance checking, jurisdiction comparison, dependency analysis, change tracking, run ledger management, attestation creation, and evidence export. There are no obvious dead ends or missing core operations for the stated domain.

Resources

Need Help?