Skip to main content
Glama

DCL Trust Oracle — AI/LLM Output Audit (x402 MCP)

by com.fronesislabs

Deep Forensic Audit Decode

dcl_audit_decode_deep
Read-onlyIdempotent

POST-ACTION Deep Forensic Audit ($0.50). Extended output with drift_context and full chain integrity verification.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tx_hashYesTransaction hash of the audit chain record to retrieve.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoSet if tx_hash was not found; other fields are omitted.
reasonNoExplanation recorded for the verdict.
tx_hashNoHash of the audit chain record.
verdictNoCOMMIT or NO_COMMIT.
agent_idNoIdentifier of the agent tied to this record.
prev_hashNoHash of the preceding record in the chain.
seal_textNoHuman-readable Leibniz Layer verification seal.
task_typeNoTask type tag recorded with this entry.
timestampNoUnix timestamp when the record was created.
confidenceNoConfidence score recorded for the verdict.
verify_urlNoPublic URL to independently verify this seal.
chain_indexNoSequential index of the record in the chain.
drift_contextNoExtended forensic metadata captured at evaluation time.
tamper_reasonNoWhy chain_integrity is False — a broken prev_hash link or an edited row whose stored tx_hash no longer matches its recomputed content hash.
chain_integrityNoTrue if the full chain verifies as intact.
tampered_at_indexNoIndex where chain integrity broke, if any tampering was detected.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / payment_id
      Removed value: -{
-  "default": "",
-  "description": "Optional payment identifier returned by a previous call when payment is required",
-  "title": "Payment Id",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by noting the $0.50 cost, the extended output fields (drift_context), and chain integrity verification, which are behavioral details not in the annotations. However, it does not disclose any additional operational constraints or response characteristics beyond these mentions.

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 (two sentences) and directly conveys the key differentiator ('extended output') and cost. It is not front-loaded with the most critical action verb, but it is efficient and free of fluff. The placement of 'POST-ACTION' first is somewhat ambiguous but not verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover safety. The description provides enough to understand it's a deeper audit decode, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose it over dcl_audit_decode, and it does not clarify what 'POST-ACTION' means operationally. This leaves some gaps for an agent to make a fully informed decision.

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%, so the single parameter tx_hash is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics; it only mentions output features. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the burden.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description labels the tool as 'Deep Forensic Audit' and mentions 'Extended output with drift_context and full chain integrity verification,' which implies it decodes an audit record in greater detail, but it does not explicitly state the action (e.g., 'retrieve' or 'decode') or the resource (tx_hash). It distinguishes from the sibling dcl_audit_decode only by the word 'Deep' and 'Extended output,' which is suggestive but not definitive.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description says 'POST-ACTION' which hints at a usage context but does not explain when to use this deep variant versus the basic dcl_audit_decode or other audit tools. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance, leaving the agent to infer that 'deep' means more detailed without clear criteria.

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

All DCL Trust Oracle — AI/LLM Output Audit (x402 MCP) 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

There is meaningful overlap among the many dcl_evaluate_* variants (e.g., fast/strict/jailbreak/safety, secrets/wallet/pii, mev/signal/trade), so an agent could easily pick the wrong one. The descriptions are detailed and do help, but the boundaries between policies are subtle enough that the set is not clearly disambiguated.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dcl_evaluate_* family is highly consistent, and the remaining tools (dcl_commit, dcl_audit_decode, dcl_audit_decode_deep, dcl_pipeline_start) still follow the same snake_case dcl_ prefix convention. Minor deviations like using adjectives/adverbs in evaluate_fast/strict and noun-verb ordering in dcl_pipeline_start keep it from a perfect 5.

Tool Count3/5

18 tools is on the heavy side, especially since many are single-policy evaluators that could arguably be consolidated behind a policy parameter. That said, the tool count is justified by distinct pricing tiers and the breadth of audit categories, so it is borderline rather than excessive.

Completeness4/5

The audit lifecycle is well covered: pre-action evaluation, post-action scans, sanitization, final commit, and on-chain retrieval/verification. Minor gaps exist—no list/query tool for the append-only chain and no way to define custom policies—but the core workflows have no dead ends.

Resources