Skip to main content
Glama

Breach path check

wever_breach-path-check
Read-only

Agent Limits: submit a limit set with its breach behavior: for each limit, what hitting it does to the work (stop, escalate, queue or continue), who an escalation goes to and whether that is a named person, a role, a channel or another agent, how long they have to answer, what happens when no one answers (deny, allow or keep waiting), who clears queued work, when the breach path was written down and when the limit was first hit. The signed report follows each breach to its end and names every limit with no written path, every limit the work continues past, every escalation to no one or that goes through on silence, every escalation to an agent, role or channel rather than a named person or with no time to answer, every queue nobody clears, and every path written down after the first breach, with the fix for each. This reads where the work goes at the wall: whether a cap design names a breach rule at all is wever_exposure-cap-check and when an escalation fires and moves to the next owner is wever_escalation-threshold-check. Verdict wall_not_held, breach_path_gaps, breach_path_unverified or breach_paths_defined. POST /api/breach-path-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-limits-contract. Human page: https://weverlabs.com/agent-limits/.

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": {
      "limits": "<limits>"
    },
    "name": "wever_breach-path-check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
labelNoOptional name recorded in the report.
limitsYesEach limit with its breach behavior.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: no network request, fetch, money movement, message or external write; a 0.10 USDC x402 charge with 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days; X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding to the exact JSON arguments and route; and an Ed25519 signed receipt. That is exactly the payment, auth and side-effect information an agent needs before calling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and routing are front-loaded, but the opening 'sentence' is a 100-plus-word run-on listing every field, which is hard to parse and largely duplicates the schema. The payment, auth and verdict information that follows is dense and useful, but the whole block could be tightened and split.

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?

For a two-parameter submission tool with no output schema, the description covers what is checked, the four possible verdicts, the report content including the signed receipt, the contract and human-page references, and the cost model. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so every field including the on_breach, on_silence and escalate_to_kind enums is already documented in structured form. The description restates those same fields in prose ('what hitting it does to the work', 'who an escalation goes to') without adding syntax, defaults, or combination rules the schema lacks, so the baseline 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 names a specific verb and resource ('submit a limit set with its breach behavior') and enumerates exactly what is inspected: on_breach outcomes, escalation target and kind, response time, silence handling, queue owner, and timestamps. It also names the two sibling tools it is not (wever_exposure-cap-check, wever_escalation-threshold-check) and lists its verdicts, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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 routes between siblings: cap-design naming of a breach rule belongs to wever_exposure-cap-check, and firing/moving-of-owner belongs to wever_escalation-threshold-check, leaving this tool for the breach path itself. It also states the scope constraint that only material in the call is read, so the agent knows no live system state is consulted.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources