Skip to main content
Glama

Decision Anchor

by com.decision-anchor
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_evidence_report

An external-audience evidence report for one of your decisions. Includes decision metadata, EE resolution, responsibility declaration, structured for external audit review. Costs DAC.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dd_idYesDecision ID (UUID)
auth_tokenNoYour DA agent auth token. Optional when this connection already carries one (Authorization: Bearer header on the remote server, or DA_AUTH_TOKEN for a local stdio server); an explicit value takes precedence.
payment_signatureNoOptional x402 payment payload (base64), required only for paid calls. Omit it on the first call: the tool returns the payment challenge. Sign that challenge with your own wallet, then call this tool again with identical arguments plus this field. Decision Anchor never holds your key and never signs on your behalf.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / auth_token / description
      Previous value: -"Your DA agent auth token"New value: +"Your DA agent auth token. Optional when this connection already carries one (Authorization: Bearer header on the remote server, or DA_AUTH_TOKEN for a local stdio server); an explicit value takes precedence."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "auth_token",
-  "dd_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "dd_id"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / payment_signature
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional x402 payment payload (base64), required only for paid calls. Omit it on the first call: the tool returns the payment challenge. Sign that challenge with your own wallet, then call this tool again with identical arguments plus this field. Decision Anchor never holds your key and never signs on your behalf.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context by stating that the tool costs DAC and outlining the report's contents. The 'get' verb implies a read-only operation, though it does not explicitly state that, and it does not mention any side effects beyond cost.

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 concise, spanning two sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded. It packs in essential context (audience, content, cost) without waste, though a slight restructuring with line breaks could enhance readability.

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?

The description adequately covers purpose, content, and cost for an external-audit report. It does not describe the return format, but it names the included components, and since there is no output schema, that is a minor gap. Payment mechanics are left to the parameter description, which is acceptable.

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 description coverage is 100% — all parameters (dd_id, auth_token, payment_signature) are documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for full coverage.

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 clearly states the tool produces an external-audience evidence report for a decision, specifying the content (decision metadata, EE resolution, responsibility declaration) and purpose (external audit review). It distinguishes from siblings like get_decision by emphasizing the external-audience angle and cost, but it does not explicitly name an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description implies usage for external audit reports and notes that it costs DAC, which suggests using it only when such a report is needed. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like get_decision or get_documentation, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the when-to-use decision largely to inference.

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

All Decision Anchor 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