Skip to main content
Glama

Bidda Sovereign Intelligence

by com.bidda

record_run_entry

Append one entry to an open run: which Bidda rules the agent consulted, what it decided, and the end user's input (as text via note, or privately as input_hash). Each entry is hash-chained to the previous one. Requires an active Bidda subscription: pass api_key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoOptional: the end user's message as text.
modelNoOptional: the model id/version that produced this decision (e.g. gpt-4o-2024-08-06).
nodesNoOptional node_ids the agent consulted (max 50).
actionNoOptional: an action the agent took or checked.
run_idYesThe run_id returned by open_run.
api_keyNoOptional. 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.
decisionNoOptional: what the agent decided or did this turn.
entry_typeNoOptional: node_consulted | action_checked | decision | note. Defaults to note.
input_hashNoOptional: a sha256:... hash of the user's message instead of the text.
output_hashNoOptional: a sha256:... hash of the agent's output.
subject_hashNoOptional: a sha256:... hash of an end-user identifier for per-subject traceability. Hash only, never plaintext.
verify_nodesNoOptional: pin each node in "nodes" to its current version + integrity hash (proof, not just a claim). No extra call charge.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: each entry is hash-chained (important for integrity), requires an active subscription, and explains the api_key header vs argument precedence. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false).

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?

Two sentences that front-load the primary action and content, then include critical behavioral details (hash-chaining, auth) without fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 12-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, key constraints (open run, auth), and the distinction between textual and hashed input. No critical information for correct use is missing.

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?

The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that the end user's input can be sent as text via note or privately via input_hash, and by explaining that verify_nodes provides proof by pinning nodes to versions. These enrich meaning without repeating schema descriptions.

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 action (Append one entry) and the resource (an open run), plus the content (rules consulted, decision, end user input). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like open_run, get_run, and seal_run, which have different purposes.

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 implies when to use it (recording a run entry) and mentions prerequisite (active Bidda subscription, api_key). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to call it.

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 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

A4/5.0
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