Skip to main content
Glama

evidence-ledger

by com.saasdossier

get_free_dossier

Returns the free OpenAI Public Edition: the dossier title, the direct PDF download URL, and the guided page URL. The OpenAI record, Dossier No. 003, is published free and complete as proof of the format: the same 55 fields across 10 domains, the same two states (47 Documented, 8 Question surfaced), the same source register and the same integrity identifier a Licensed Edition carries. It is built from OpenAI's own published pages, reviewed before release; no relationship with, or endorsement by, OpenAI is implied. Use this tool to give a buyer the whole workproduct to read before they license another released vendor or commission a new one.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's nature (free, complete, from OpenAI's published pages), states it is 'reviewed before release,' and includes a disclaimer about no implied relationship with OpenAI. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the simple fact of returning data.

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 somewhat verbose, with three sentences and some promotional language about 'proof of the format' and 'the same 55 fields across 10 domains.' However, each sentence adds meaningful context about what the dossier contains and its purpose, so it is concise enough for the richness of information conveyed.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully specifies the return values (title, PDF URL, guided page URL) and adds context about the dossier's contents and intended use. It is complete and self-sufficient for a simple 'get' tool.

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, so the baseline is 4 as per the rubric. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed; the schema is empty and fully covers the lack of parameters.

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 ('Returns') and names the exact resource ('the free OpenAI Public Edition') and the items returned (dossier title, direct PDF download URL, guided page URL). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on the free public dossier, not the methodology, ledger, or register.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The final sentence provides explicit usage context: 'Use this tool to give a buyer the whole workproduct to read before they license another released vendor or commission a new one.' This clarifies when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use alternatives.

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

All evidence-ledger 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The four tools mostly have clear boundaries: methodology, register, ledger, and free dossier are conceptually distinct. However, get_free_dossier and get_openai_ledger both point at the same public OpenAI record, and an agent must read carefully to know one returns a PDF/URL and the other field-level evidence.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent get_ pattern with clear object nouns: dossier, methodology, openai_ledger, register. There is no mixed casing, verb style variation, or vagueness across the set.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is a well-scoped size for an informational evidence ledger service: methodology, the public ledger, the free dossier, and the release register. Each tool earns its place and the set does not feel thin or bloated.

Completeness4/5

The core workflow is covered: understand the framework, access the free public dossier, retrieve field-level evidence, and view releases and commission options. The main gap is that licensed dossiers are described in the register but cannot be fetched directly, and commissioning is reported but not executable through a tool.

Resources