Samuelz® Policy

Bestätigte Unternehmensregel lesen

get_policy

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read one confirmed rule or verify it after a change. Use get_policy_history for comparisons and get_policy_write_options for an editable revision.

Select the kind/moduleKey/policyKey identity from list_policies. With policyVersion:

A policy may pin a historical numeric version.
A template may pin only its currently confirmed revision.
An unavailable pin stays unavailable; it never falls back to another version.

Omit policyVersion for current state. This numeric history version is not the opaque revision used for writing.

Returns verified with an attestation-checked, sensitive-field-redacted snapshot, or unavailable with a reason. Requires policy:read and current policies Owner access. Reading restores no version and grants no action authority.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "moduleKey": "<moduleKey>",
      "policyKey": "<policyKey>"
    },
    "name": "get_policy"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	Yes	Rule kind returned by list_policies; copy it with the same moduleKey and policyKey.
`moduleKey`	Yes	Module key of the selected list_policies identity; never a tenant selector.
`policyKey`	Yes	Policy or template key from that same list_policies identity.
`policyVersion`	No	Omit for the current confirmed state. A regular policy can pin a history version; templates only expose their current confirmed revision.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds important context beyond them: required policy:read and Owner access, attestation-checked redaction, unavailable reasons, and the fact that reading neither restores a version nor grants action authority. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a read tool.

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 front-loaded with purpose and alternatives, then uses compact bullets for version-pinning behavior. Despite covering nuanced semantics, every sentence carries relevant guidance for correct invocation.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description documents the return states: verified with an attestation-checked, redacted snapshot or unavailable with a reason. Combined with auth requirements and version-pinning rules, it gives the agent everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, especially that policyVersion is a numeric history version rather than the opaque revision used for writing. It also clarifies template versus policy pinning behavior and that unavailable pins never fall back to another version.

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 states a precise verb and resource: read one confirmed rule or verify it after a change. It explicitly names sibling tools for comparisons and editable revisions, so an agent can distinguish get_policy from get_policy_history and get_policy_write_options 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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives, including get_policy_history for comparisons and get_policy_write_options for an editable revision. It also gives concrete selection guidance: use list_policies for identity and omit policyVersion for current state.

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

All Samuelz® Policy tools Inspect

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

Need Help?