AI Agent Safety Foundational Certificate

safety_get_exam_result

Read-only

Use to look up a Safety exam's result by exam_id. Free. Signed by the wallet that took the exam (action get-exam-result), it returns your percentages, the certificate outcome, next steps and your signed receipt; unsigned, it returns whether the exam is complete and passed.

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": {
      "exam_id": "<exam_id>"
    },
    "name": "safety_get_exam_result"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`nonce`	No	A random string of 1-128 characters you choose; each (wallet, nonce) pair works once.
`exam_id`	Yes	The exam_id returned when the exam started.
`signature`	No	Optional: sign with the wallet that took the exam (action get-exam-result, a bodyless message) to receive the full result and your signed receipt; send signature, timestamp and nonce together (GET /guide has the message format).
`timestamp`	No	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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description still earns credit for disclosing that the call is free, that the signing action is get-exam-result, and that two distinct response shapes exist depending on whether a signature is sent. The non-obvious idempotentHint=false (tied to one-time nonce use) is left for the schema to explain rather than being addressed here.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two front-loaded sentences with no filler; exam_id lookup comes first, then the mode-dependent payoff. The middle clause is dense but each clause carries information, and nothing is repeated verbatim from the schema.

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 summarizes what both call modes return (percentages, certificate outcome, next steps, signed receipt vs complete/passed). For a single-resource read with fully documented parameters, that is close to sufficient, though the field-level detail of the signed result is only sketched.

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%, with nonce, exam_id, signature and timestamp each documented in detail, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description reinforces the consequence of supplying signature but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 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?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('look up a Safety exam's result by exam_id'), which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as safety_recheck_exam or safety_get_exam_history, so the agent must infer that this is the plain read path, but the signed/unsigned split is made explicit.

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 gives clear usage context: call it with the wallet's signature (action get-exam-result) to get the full result and receipt, or unsigned for the minimal complete/passed status, plus the note that it is free. What is missing is any routing against alternatives like recheck or history, or a when-not-to-use clause.

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?