Wever Labs Agentic Rails

Actor attribution check

wever_actor-attribution-check

Read-only

Agent Accountability: submit an action or audit record design: each kind of action with how its record identifies the actor, the authorization, the permissions held and the time, plus whether permissions are enforced grants or instructions and whether grants keep earlier versions. The signed report names every recorded action that cannot be attributed to a specific agent acting under a specific authorization with specific permissions at that moment, and the missing field in each case. Run completeness is wever_run-record-check. Verdict unattributable_actions, attribution_unverified or attributable. POST /api/actor-attribution-check. Reads only the material in the call: no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write. Paid URL: 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, with the shared 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days. Bind X-Wever-Wallet-Proof to the exact JSON arguments and the tool route. Returns a report with an Ed25519 signed receipt. Contract: /api/agent-accountability-contract. Human page: https://weverlabs.com/agent-accountability/.

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": {
      "actions": "<actions>"
    },
    "name": "wever_actor-attribution-check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`label`	No	Optional name recorded in the report.
`actions`	Yes	Each action kind with what its record holds.
`grants_versioned`	No	A changed grant keeps its earlier version.
`permissions_from`	No	Where permissions come from.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: 'Reads only the material in the call: no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write', pricing at 0.10 USDC per call, wallet-proof binding, and an Ed25519 signed receipt. This clearly explains side-effect and auth/payment behavior.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every major sentence contributes useful operational detail. The first sentence is dense and tangled, and the payment/URL details add bulk, though they are relevant for a paid tool.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the return: a signed report naming unattributable actions and missing fields, with verdict values. It also covers side effects, payment/auth requirements, and the sibling alternative, leaving little an agent needs missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds conceptual meaning to the action design fields: actor identification, authorization, permissions held, time, enforced grants versus instructions, and grant versioning. It does not add syntax details, but it clarifies what each recorded field represents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'submit an action or audit record design', and names the exact analysis performed: recorded actions that cannot be attributed to a specific agent/authorization/permissions/time. It also distinguishes a sibling: 'Run completeness is wever_run-record-check.'

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?

Routes the agent to wever_run-record-check for a different check and lists the verdicts, which implies when this tool applies. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it versus the many other accountability siblings.

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

All Wever Labs Agentic Rails 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?