Skip to main content
Glama

door_a9015a46f924

by dev.bubblio

confirm

Execute a quoted action. Confirming executes this action exactly once. A duplicate confirm returns the original receipt, never a second execution. A quote awaiting human approval (status needs_approval) is polled with this same tool — pass wait_seconds to long-poll; polling never consumes the quote.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paymentNoCompat alias for payment_credential: { rail, token }. Present one or the other, never both.
quote_idYesThe quote_id returned by quote.
agent_keyNoThe same agent key the quote was made with. Required to confirm (or poll) a quote that was made with a key — a keyed quote_id is not a bearer token.
wait_secondsNoFor quotes awaiting human approval or payment: how long to wait (0–25s) before answering awaiting_human / awaiting_payment. Ignored once the quote is ready.
payment_credentialNoPaid actions only: { type, token } — a rail from the quote's payment profile (e.g. type "stripe_spt" with an spt_… token) plus the opaque payment token for it. NEVER a card number. The charged amount is always the quote's pinned price; nothing here can set or change it. Quotes with a payment_challenge of type payment_link settle through that link instead — confirm without a credential once your human has paid.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses idempotency (duplicate confirm returns original receipt), polling semantics (never consumes the quote), and the payment credential constraints (never a card number, amount is pinned). It does not explicitly state whether the action is destructive or requires special permissions, but the idempotency and payment details are strong behavioral disclosures.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is compact but information-dense. It front-loads the core action and idempotency, then covers polling and payment nuances in a few sentences. Every sentence adds critical information without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, nested objects, payment flows, polling), the description covers the key behaviors: idempotency, polling, payment credential rules, and keyed quotes. It does not describe the return format (no output schema), but the description mentions 'receipt' and 'awaiting_human/awaiting_payment' statuses, which gives a reasonable picture. Minor gap: no mention of error cases or what happens if the quote is expired.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the payment_credential vs payment alias relationship, the keyed quote requirement, and the wait_seconds behavior. It clarifies the payment_link exception, which is not obvious from the schema alone.

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 clearly states the tool executes a quoted action exactly once, and distinguishes it from quote (which creates the quote) and from polling behavior. It names the specific resource (a quote) and the action (confirm/execute), making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly explains when to use this tool: to execute a quoted action, to poll a quote awaiting human approval (with wait_seconds), and when not to use it (never for a second execution, never with a payment credential for payment_link quotes). It also clarifies the distinction from quote and the behavior for keyed quotes.

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

All door_a9015a46f924 toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly separate role: about explains the platform, ask answers questions, list_actions enumerates available actions, quote creates an execution quote, and confirm executes or polls a quote. There is little risk of selecting the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

The action pair quote/confirm and list_actions follow an obvious imperative style, and all tools are short and readable. Minor inconsistency exists because about is a preposition rather than a verb, and list_actions uses an underscore while the others do not.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is appropriate for this domain: discovery, informational context, quoting, and confirmation are all represented. The surface is compact without feeling thin.

Completeness5/5

The platform provides a complete workflow for agents: learn about the platform, ask questions, list available actions, quote a specific action, and confirm or poll it. There are no obvious dead ends in the core flow.

Resources