durable-agent-directory

pre_check

Free mechanical pre-check before a paid verification review: given a claims object mapping each criterion key (approvalGates, restartRecovery, evidenceTrail, killSwitch, policyControls, isolation) to a public documentation URL, reports which criteria have documentation linked and which are missing. It checks that links were supplied, never that the documentation proves the claim.

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": {
      "claims": "<claims>"
    },
    "name": "pre_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`claims`	Yes	Map of criterion key to public documentation URL.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the check is free, purely mechanical, and only verifies that links were supplied rather than that the documentation proves the claim — the single most important behavioral caveat. It also sketches the return result (which criteria are linked vs missing), though it omits auth or rate-limit considerations, which are likely minor for this operation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's role and pricing/sequencing context, followed by the exact scope limitation. No filler, and the most decision-relevant fact — that this is a free pre-check — comes first.

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 single-parameter, non-mutating check with fully documented schema, the description covers purpose, input shape, the limit of what is verified, and a rough description of the output. The exact return structure (per-criterion booleans, list of missing keys, or a summary object) is not pinned down, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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% and the nested object enumerates all six criterion keys with the same 'public documentation URL' meaning the description restates. The description adds no format constraints (e.g. URL scheme, whether all six keys are required within the object), so it matches the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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+resource: it takes a claims object of criterion keys mapped to documentation URLs and reports which criteria have links and which are missing. It also draws an explicit line between itself and the paid verification review, so an agent knows exactly what this tool will and will not do.

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?

It clearly states the usage context — run this free mechanical pre-check before a paid verification review — which implies a sequencing rule an agent can follow. It does not name any of the listed sibling tools as alternatives or give explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the routing intent is unambiguous.

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

All durable-agent-directory 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?