Wever Labs Agentic Rails

Context sharing check

wever_context-sharing-check

Read-only

Agent Operations: submit one proposed sharing event (the context items, who would receive them and in what setting and for what purpose), the owner’s stated sharing rules as structured rules (refuse, require consent or allow, by category, item, recipient, setting and purpose) and any prior consent records, with the event date. The signed report says whether an existing consent covers the event, whether fresh consent is needed first and exactly what changed to need it (new participant, new setting, wider scope, new purpose, or an expired or revoked consent), or whether a stated rule refuses it. Consent logic on supplied records only. Verdict refused_by_rule, fresh_consent_required or covered. POST /api/context-sharing-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-operations-contract. Human page: https://weverlabs.com/agent-operations/.

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": {
      "event": "<event>",
      "as_of": "<as_of>"
    },
    "name": "wever_context-sharing-check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`as_of`	Yes	The date the event would happen, as YYYY-MM-DD.
`event`	Yes
`label`	No	Optional name recorded in the report.
`rules`	No	The owner’s stated sharing rules, as structured rules.
`consents`	No	Prior consent records, each scoped like a rule.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it enumerates the no-side-effect surface ('no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write'), which corroborates readOnlyHint/destructiveHint, and it discloses cost (0.10 USDC on Base via x402), the 10 free calls per 30 days, and the wallet-proof binding requirement. It stops short of describing report contents or error/insufficient-funds behavior.

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?

The first sentence is a ~60-word run-on that packs the payload definition into one clause chain, and the tail is boilerplate (paid URL, contract link, human page). The verdict and scope information is front-loaded and useful, but the density makes it harder to parse than a short bulleted decomposition would be.

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?

For a complex tool with deeply nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the input intent, the verdict set, the reasons for fresh consent (new participant, new setting, wider scope, new purpose, expired/revoked consent), and the signed-receipt return. The only real gap is the absence of a fuller report shape, which matters because no output schema exists.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining what the rules and consents are matched on — category, item, recipient, setting, purpose — and by clarifying that rules are 'structured rules' with refuse/require-consent/allow effects, which the schema's bare enum does not explain. It still does not say how matching works for unlisted fields or how expiry/revocation is compared to as_of.

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 action and resource: submit a proposed sharing event plus the owner's structured rules and prior consent records, and get back a consent verdict. It names the three possible verdicts (refused_by_rule, fresh_consent_required, covered) and the endpoint, so an agent knows exactly what this computes without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Consent logic on supplied records only' and the refusal/consent/allow rule effects hint at checking before sharing, but there is no explicit 'use this when / do not use this when' and no named alternative among the many sibling *-check tools (e.g. privacy-evidence-check, delegated-authority).

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?