toolcallwitness-mcp
Server Details
A witness layer for AI agent tool calls.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- clauxel/tool-call-witness-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 1.4/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose—checking a rule, creating a receipt, exporting an audit, and summarizing a timeline—with no overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (check_, create_, export_, summarize_), making them predictable and easy to distinguish.
Four tools is well-scoped for the witness/audit domain, covering key actions without being too sparse or excessive.
The set covers core operations but lacks tools for listing receipts or verifying signatures, though the main workflow is supported.
Available Tools
4 toolscheck_approval_ruleDInspect
ToolCall Witness check approval rule
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sample | Yes | ||
| context | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description discloses no behavioral traits such as read/write nature, side effects, permissions, or idempotency. The agent cannot assess safety or impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is very short, it is not concise in a helpful sense; it omits essential information. Every word should earn its place, but here the single sentence lacks substance, wasting the opportunity to provide value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and meaningful parameter descriptions, the tool description is completely inadequate. An AI agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on the provided information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has two parameters ('sample' and 'context') with 0% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no meaning or context for these parameters, leaving their purpose entirely unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'ToolCall Witness check approval rule' essentially restates the tool name without clarifying the verb or resource. It does not specify what 'check' means or what the tool accomplishes, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_witness_receipt'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or conditions for appropriate use, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
create_witness_receiptDInspect
ToolCall Witness create witness receipt
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sample | Yes | ||
| context | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not disclose any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return behavior. The description adds no value beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but wastes the opportunity to be informative. A single sentence that could have been phrased as 'Create a witness receipt' is instead verbose and unclear. It lacks structure or front-loading of key details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two parameters (one required), no output schema, and no annotations, a much richer description is needed. This description fails to explain the purpose, parameters, usage context, or what the tool returns, making it completely inadequate for effective agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema itself provides no descriptions for the two parameters ('sample' and 'context'). The description does not clarify what these parameters represent or how they affect the tool's behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'ToolCall Witness create witness receipt' is essentially a tautology of the tool name, providing no distinct verb-resource relationship. It fails to clarify what the tool actually does, and the phrasing is ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings (check_approval_rule, export_audit_receipt, summarize_risk_timeline). The description offers no context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
export_audit_receiptDInspect
ToolCall Witness export audit receipt
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sample | Yes | ||
| context | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It provides no information about side effects, authorization needs, or output behavior beyond the vague phrase.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short but under-specified; conciseness is wasted because it fails to convey essential information. It is not efficient for an agent's decision-making.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not describe return values, prerequisites, or behavior, leaving the agent with insufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and description does not explain 'sample' or 'context' parameters. The agent receives no semantic help beyond field names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description mentions 'export audit receipt' which suggests the tool's action but is ambiguous due to 'ToolCall Witness' prefix and lack of specificity. It minimally distinguishes from siblings like 'create_witness_receipt' but does not clearly define the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'create_witness_receipt' or 'check_approval_rule'. The description lacks any contextual cues for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
summarize_risk_timelineDInspect
ToolCall Witness summarize risk timeline
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sample | Yes | ||
| context | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It fails to indicate side effects, auth requirements, or return values, providing no behavioral insight beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but also uninformative. Conciseness without substance is under-specification; a useful definition would require more detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain the tool's purpose and parameter roles. It does neither, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'sample' or 'context' parameters. No meaning is added beyond the schema's bare type declarations, making parameter usage ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'ToolCall Witness summarize risk timeline' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying a clear verb or resource. It does not distinguish the tool's purpose from siblings like 'check_approval_rule' or 'create_witness_receipt'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent uncertain about appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!