WritersLogic agent-infra

delegation-contract-check

Check that a sub-agent delegation states objective, acceptance criteria, budget, evidence and stop conditions — Checks the brief an agent is about to hand to another agent: the required parts are present and non-empty (objective, acceptance criteria, a budget with at least one positive numeric bound, required evidence, stop conditions; output format if required), nothing is duplicated, and acceptance criteria are not made only of vague wording (a small labelled word list: good, appropriate, if possible ...)

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "delegation-contract-check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`budget`	No
`require`	No	Parts that must be present. Default: objective, acceptanceCriteria, budget, evidenceRequired, stopConditions.
`objective`	No
`outputFormat`	No
`stopConditions`	No	When the delegate must stop and report (done, blocked, budget spent).
`evidenceRequired`	No	What the delegate must return as proof (links, test output, file paths).
`acceptanceCriteria`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explains the rule set in unusual depth (positive numeric bound on budget, duplication check, a labelled vague-word list for acceptance criteria), but never states the return shape (issue list vs. boolean), whether the tool mutates anything, or how a failing check is surfaced to the caller.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the whole definition is a single dense sentence with nested parentheticals and an em-dash aside, making it harder to parse than it needs to be. Splitting the required-parts list from the quality rules would read far better.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a seven-parameter tool with a nested budget object, zero annotations, and no output schema, the description should also explain what a caller receives back and how partial failures are reported. What is present is solid coverage of the validation rules, but the response contract is a real gap given nothing else documents it.

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 description coverage is only 43%, and the description partially compensates by tying semantics to fields: budget must carry at least one positive numeric bound, acceptance criteria are screened against a vague-word list, and outputFormat is only required when demanded. However objective, stopConditions, and the interaction between the caller-supplied `require` list and the default set are left implicit.

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 object — checking the brief an agent hands to another agent — and enumerates exactly what is verified: presence and non-emptiness of five required parts, duplication, and vague acceptance-criteria wording. That level of specificity clearly separates it from generic siblings like contract-auditor.

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?

The phrase 'the brief an agent is about to hand to another agent' establishes the moment of use (pre-flight, before delegation) quite clearly. It stops short of saying what to do when the check fails or naming an alternative tool for a different kind of contract review, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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

All WritersLogic agent-infra 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?