execute_delegated_actionExecute a credential-bound write only after validating the signed mandate and a short-lived single-use action grant.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | No | ||
| work_order | No | ||
| commerce_proof | No | ||
| signed_mandate | No | ||
| signed_action_grant | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=false already indicates a write, and the description adds that this is a credential-bound write requiring specific authorization artifacts. It does not explain failure behavior, whether the single-use grant is consumed, or any side effects, so the added transparency is moderate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core action and preconditions. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with five object parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description leaves major gaps: it does not explain the purpose or structure of action, work_order, or commerce_proof, nor the response format or error cases. The security prerequisites are helpful but not enough for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at two parameters (signed_mandate and signed_action_grant) via 'signed mandate' and 'single-use action grant', but leaves action, work_order, and commerce_proof entirely unexplained. This is insufficient for five parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as executing a credential-bound write operation that requires validation of a signed mandate and a single-use action grant. This distinguishes it from generic execute tools by specifying the security prerequisites, though the term 'delegated action' is only in the title, not the description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'only after validating...' implies the tool must not be used until the signed mandate and action grant are validated, providing a usage condition. However, it does not mention alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use this tool, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
With 89 tools, there is extensive overlap. For example, multiple tools handle completing paid rail runs (complete_agent_self_serve_paid_rail_run, complete_paid_rail_run_with_callback, run_stripe_receipt_completion) and several verify receipts (verify_receipt, verify_managed_receipt_signature, verify_signature_by_version). Distinguishing between these without deep inspection is nearly impossible.
Most tool names follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., start_rail_run, get_run_status, verify_receipt). However, there are minor deviations like 'credential_aware_mcp_write' which is not verb-first, making it slightly inconsistent. Overall the naming is quite uniform.
89 tools is an extreme count, far beyond the typical 3-15 or even 25+. This suggests the server is trying to cover too many sub-domains, making the tool surface unwieldy and difficult to navigate.
The tool surface is extremely broad, covering discovery, quoting, payment, run lifecycle, receipts, credentials, directory submission, compliance, and verification. It lacks some expected operations like cancellation or refund, but these are niche and the core workflows are well-covered.