inspect_authority_mandateReturn the verified mandate and durable lifecycle state for the credential-bound agent or authorized operator.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mandate_id | No | ||
| signed_mandate | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=true, the safety profile is already known. The description adds a bit of behavioral context by mentioning 'verified' and 'durable lifecycle state', implying validity checks and state retrieval. However, it does not disclose behavior when inputs are invalid or how the two parameters interact, leaving some ambiguity.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
Given no output schema, an unannotated nested object, and low schema coverage, the description needs to provide more context about expected inputs, outputs, and behavior. It does not explain what 'durable lifecycle state' entails, how to specify the mandate (by ID or signed object), or what a typical response looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke correctly.
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?
The schema has zero description coverage for both parameters (mandate_id and signed_mandate), and the tool description does not explain how these parameters are used or their relationship to the 'credential-bound agent or authorized operator'. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the resource ('verified mandate and durable lifecycle state'). It clearly indicates the tool's return value and references the credential-bound agent or authorized operator. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from similar sibling tools like read_delegated_authority, so it misses the differentiation criterion.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. In the context of many sibling tools related to authority and delegation, the description provides no usage context or decision support.
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.