AI Agent Safety Foundational Certificate

safety_get_exam_history

Read-only

Use to list your own Safety exam attempts, with each result and its private signed receipt (what you paid, your percentages, and the next attempt on offer). Free, for your wallet alone (action list-exams).

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": {
      "signature": "<signature>",
      "timestamp": "<timestamp>",
      "nonce": "<nonce>",
      "agent_id": "<agent_id>"
    },
    "name": "safety_get_exam_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Optional: how many of your most recent attempts to list, 1 to 500 (default 100).
`nonce`	Yes	A random string of 1-128 characters you choose; each (wallet, nonce) pair works once.
`agent_id`	Yes	Your wallet address. Sign the request with that wallet.
`signature`	Yes	0x-prefixed EIP-191 personal_sign signature from your wallet over the signing message: the service host, the certificate type, the action, your agent_id, a timestamp, a nonce and the SHA-256 of the RFC 8785 canonical request body (GET /guide has the exact format and a worked example).
`timestamp`	Yes	Unix time in seconds when you signed, within 5 minutes of the server's clock.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing that the call is free, that data is restricted to the caller's wallet, and what the embedded receipt reveals (amount paid, percentages, next attempt on offer). It omits ordering, pagination behavior and whether results are cached, which are minor given the read-only profile.

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?

A single sentence with the resource scope and cost/audience constraint front-loaded, followed by the payload summary and action name. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back (results plus per-attempt receipts). Combined with the fully documented auth parameters in the schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though ordering/pagination semantics remain unstated.

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 all five parameters — including the limit range 1-500 and the signing requirements — are already documented in structured fields. The description adds no meaning beyond that, e.g. it does not say what happens at the limit boundary or how attempts are ordered; baseline 3 applies.

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 — 'list your own Safety exam attempts' — plus what each entry contains (result and signed receipt). It is distinguishable from safety_get_exam_result by its plural 'list' scope, but it never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.

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?

The opening 'Use to list your own...' gives the situation (reviewing your own attempt history) and 'Free, for your wallet alone' clarifies cost and scope. There is no explicit when-not condition and no routing to alternatives such as safety_get_exam_result for a single attempt.

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

All AI Agent Safety Foundational Certificate 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?