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 snapshot version/date ExitProof can add to transaction-specific evidence. Use this only to inspect maintained coverage; use check_reversibility to evaluate an actual commitment, including an unlisted merchant when transaction-specific checkout_terms are available. An absent merchant means no maintained overlay, not that no cancellation, refund, contractual, or legal right exists. This is a free read-only snapshot: it creates no durable state, issues no payment challenge, 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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: it is a free read-only snapshot, creates no durable state, issues no payment challenge, and does not fetch or verify a merchant's live policy at call time. This clarifies side effects and scope in a way annotations alone do not.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: scope, usage, interpretation caveat, and behavioral disclosure. The purpose is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of structured fields.

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, the description fully covers its role, limitations, and interpretation pitfalls. An output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, so the description has no critical gaps.

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 schema already states this with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4; the description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the maintained merchant policy overlays and snapshot version/date'. It also differentiates from siblings by naming check_reversibility as the tool for evaluating actual commitments, so an agent can immediately distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this only to inspect maintained coverage' and directs to check_reversibility for evaluating actual commitments, including unlisted merchants with checkout_terms. It also provides an interpretive caveat about absent merchants, preventing a common misunderstanding about legal rights. This is exemplary when-to-use/not-use guidance.

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