Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

WritersLogic verifiable AI agents

by com.writerslogic.agents
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

smt-contract-prover

SMT Contract & Policy Logic Prover — Answers a yes/no logic question about contract clauses, IAM/OPA policies or business rules with a solver-backed result and a plain-language headline and next step. Takes clauses or pasted text (or a formal IR directly with zero LLM calls), formalizes them into typed Boolean, integer and rational constraints, then answers "is P possible", "does invariant I always hold" or "are any clauses contradic

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": "smt-contract-prover"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
irNoFormal IR, solved with zero LLM calls: {variables:[{name,type:bool|int|real,min?,max?}], constraints:[{id,expr,source?}], query:{mode:possible|always|consistency,formula?,source?}}. Expressions are JSON ASTs: {op:"var",name}, {op:"num",value:"3/4"}, {op:"true"|"false"}, and {op,args} for not, and, or, implies, iff, ite, =, !=, <, <=, >, >=, add, sub, neg, mul (one side constant). Numbers are exact strings.
textNoAlternative to clauses: the contract, policy or rules pasted as plain text. It is split into clauses by blank lines and numbered or bulleted lines (ids C1.2 or S3). Use clauses when you need your own ids. Requires query.
queryNoThe question, e.g. "Can an unauthorized user ever approve a payout over $10,000?" or "Are any clauses mutually contradictory?". Required with clauses.
budgetNoOptional lower step budgets.
clausesNoNatural-language contract clauses, IAM/OPA policy statements or business rules, each with a caller-chosen id. Mutually exclusive with ir.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that clauses/text are LLM-formalized while IR is solved with zero LLM calls, and that the output is a plain-language headline plus next step. It says nothing about timeout or budget-exhaustion behavior, unknown/undecided outcomes, or whether the raw solver model is returned.

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 is front-loaded and the two sentences are dense with useful content, but the text is truncated mid-word ("are any clauses contradic"), and the leading 'SMT Contract & Policy Logic Prover —' label restates the name rather than adding information.

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 five-parameter tool with a nested budget object, no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the input pipeline and hints at the response (headline plus next step). It leaves the answer representation and failure modes underspecified, which matters most precisely because there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the alternative-path semantics (clauses vs text vs IR), but the key detail that IR is solved with zero LLM calls is already stated in the schema's ir description, so little genuinely new meaning is added beyond it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: it answers yes/no logic questions about contract clauses, IAM/OPA policies and business rules via an SMT solver, and it enumerates the three input paths (clauses, pasted text, formal IR). The purpose is unambiguous, but nothing in the text distinguishes it from adjacent tools such as cross-field-rules or iam-minimize.

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?

Gives concrete question shapes the tool is built for ("is P possible", "does invariant I always hold", "are any clauses contradictory") and explains the input-mode choice: IR for zero-LLM formal solving, clauses when you need caller-chosen ids, text as the paste-in alternative. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming a sibling tool as the alternative.

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

All WritersLogic verifiable AI agents toolsInspect
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