Skip to main content
Glama

ExitProof

by com.davisvillelabs
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List supported policies

list_supported_policies
Read-onlyIdempotent

List the maintained merchant policy overlays and the snapshot version/date ExitProof can add to transaction-specific evidence, without charging or changing state. Use this only to inspect maintained policy coverage; use check_reversibility to evaluate an actual commitment, including merchants not listed here when transaction-specific checkout_terms are available. An absent merchant means no maintained overlay, not that no cancellation, refund, contractual, or legal right exists. The result is a read-only snapshot and does not fetch or verify a merchant’s live policy at call time.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
importantYesCoverage caveat explaining that transaction-specific checkout terms can be used for any merchant.
merchantsYesMerchants with maintained policy overlays.
schemaVersionYesSupported-policy response schema version.
policySnapshotYesVersion and verification date for the maintained policy snapshot.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / description
      Added value: +"No parameters. This tool lists the current maintained policy-overlay catalog."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "Maintained merchant-policy overlay catalog. This is coverage metadata, not a statement that unlisted merchants cannot be evaluated.",
+  "properties": {
+    "important": {
+      "description": "Coverage caveat explaining that transaction-specific checkout terms can be used for any merchant.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "merchants": {
+      "description": "Merchants with maintained policy overlays.",
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "aliases": {
+            "description": "Names that map to this merchant policy overlay.",
+            "items": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "displayName": {
+            "description": "Human-readable merchant name.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "description": "Stable maintained-policy merchant identifier.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "ruleIds": {
+            "description": "Maintained rule identifiers available for this merchant.",
+            "items": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "id",
+          "displayName",
+          "aliases",
+          "ruleIds"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "policySnapshot": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "Version and verification date for the maintained policy snapshot.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "schemaVersion": {
+      "const": "exitproof-supported-policies.v1",
+      "description": "Supported-policy response schema version."
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "schemaVersion",
+    "policySnapshot",
+    "important",
+    "merchants"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it is 'without charging or changing state,' it returns a 'read-only snapshot,' and it does not fetch or verify a merchant's live policy at call time.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by usage guidance, an important caveat, and a limitation. Every sentence adds distinct value without wasted words.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema available, the description is complete. It covers what the tool lists, when to use it, when not to use it, how to interpret absent entries, and what the result does not guarantee.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema description covers 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds relevant semantic context about what the result represents.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it 'List[s] the maintained merchant policy overlays and the snapshot version/date' that can be added to evidence. It also differentiates this tool from check_reversibility by clarifying that this only inspects maintained policy coverage rather than evaluating a commitment.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this only to inspect maintained policy coverage' and instructs to 'use check_reversibility to evaluate an actual commitment, including merchants not listed here.' It also gives an interpretive rule for absent merchants, which prevents a common misuse.

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

All ExitProof toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources