Skip to main content
Glama

Contribution Exchange

by com.signalaf

Exchange Preflight — Advisory Proposal Policy Evaluation

exchange_preflight
Read-onlyIdempotent

Evaluate a proposed contribution against the same policy logic used by the real proposal flow. Returns whether the proposal is likely to be auto-engaged, accepted for review, escalated to a human, or rejected as invalid. READ-ONLY: performs no proposal insertion, notification, event creation, or state transition. The result is advisory and time-bound — a favorable preflight does NOT guarantee engagement, Commitment, authorization, payment, or execution. Uses the same evaluateProposal function as the canonical proposal route.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesTarget domain for the proposed contribution.
categoryYesContribution category (e.g. 'technical', 'accessibility', 'documentation', 'research').
confidenceNoConfidence in the observation (score 0-1 and basis).
considerationNoRequested consideration (cash, royalty, reciprocal_access, attribution, referral, other). Advertised consideration is NOT binding until accepted through Commitment.
required_authorizationNoAuthority requested (inspect_public, sandbox_test, repository_write, private_data, credential_access, production_modify, deploy, penetration_testing).

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already present, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: 'performs no proposal insertion, notification, event creation, or state transition' and notes that results are 'advisory and time-bound.' This goes beyond what annotations convey and sets accurate expectations about side effects and reliability.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence and important caveats following. The 'Uses the same evaluateProposal function' sentence adds credibility but is somewhat optional, and the READ-ONLY phrasing slightly overlaps with the explicit no-state-transition list.

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?

Without an output schema, the description still communicates the main outcome classes and clarifies side effects and non-guarantees. It does not specify the exact response shape or fields, but an agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents every parameter. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. For fully covered schemas, the baseline of 3 applies.

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: 'Evaluate a proposed contribution against the same policy logic used by the real proposal flow.' It also lists the distinct possible results (auto-engaged, accepted, escalated, rejected), making it easy to distinguish from sibling getter/discovery tools.

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 description clearly frames this as an advisory, pre-flight check and explicitly warns that favorable results do not guarantee commitment, authorization, payment, or execution. It does not name specific alternative tools for when a non-preflight action is needed, but the sibling tool names and the READ-ONLY framing make the intended use clear.

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

All Contribution Exchange 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct concept: domain discovery, policy lookup, signal listing/detail, attempt detail, and preflight evaluation. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between any two tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names share the exchange_ prefix and mostly follow a predictable verb_noun pattern such as discover_domain, get_policy, and list_signals. The one minor deviation is exchange_preflight, which lacks an explicit object but remains clear.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for a focused read-only discovery and preflight server. Each tool earns its place and none feel redundant.

Completeness2/5

The read-only surface is fairly thorough for discovery, policy, signals, attempts, and preflight, but there is no tool to actually submit a proposal, create a commitment, or authorise an exchange. The descriptions repeatedly reference a real proposal flow that is not exposed, leaving agents unable to complete the core contribution workflow.

Resources