Skip to main content
Glama

turva-mcp

by dev.turva
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Engagement principles

get_principles
Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns turva.dev's engagement principles: async-only, least access, the result shows up in scanner numbers, and open and verifiable. Use this when a user asks how turva.dev works with clients or what rules an engagement follows. For what is sold and what it costs use get_services instead, and for how to start use get_contact. Read-only: returns static JSON that is compiled into the Worker, so it changes nothing and updates only on deploy.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modelYesThe service model the principles belong to, agent_readiness_audit for the agent-readiness audit.
rulesYesThe principles an engagement follows, one per entry.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / model / description
      Added value: +"The service model the principles belong to, agent_readiness_audit for the agent-readiness audit."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / rules / description
      Added value: +"The principles an engagement follows, one per entry."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / rules / items / properties / id / description
      Added value: +"Stable identifier of the principle."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / rules / items / properties / rationale / description
      Added value: +"What the principle means in practice and why it holds."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / rules / items / properties / title / description
      Added value: +"The principle in a short phrase."
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "model": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "rules": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "id": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "rationale": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "title": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "id",
+          "title",
+          "rationale"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "model",
+    "rules"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint:false and openWorldHint:false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the payload is static JSON compiled into the Worker, mutates nothing, and only refreshes on deploy — which tells the agent the answer can be stale relative to a release. It stops short of mentioning any auth or rate-limit behavior, so it is short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then when to use it, then sibling routing and behavioral caveats. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the description need not document return values. For a zero-parameter, read-only static-content tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs to select and call it correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline rule a 4 applies. The description correctly says nothing about inputs, and there is no schema surface left unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns turva.dev's engagement principles') and enumerates the actual content (async-only, least access, scanner-visible results, open and verifiable), so an agent knows exactly what payload to expect. It also explicitly separates itself from get_services and get_contact, so it is distinguishable from siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use this when a user asks how turva.dev works with clients or what rules an engagement follows') plus routing rules for the two adjacent intents — pricing/offerings go to get_services, onboarding goes to get_contact. Nothing about when-not-to-use this tool is left to inference.

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

All turva-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources