Skip to main content
Glama

standing_spec

What agent_standing measures and how to verify one: the evidence tiers (paid hires ChainHelix funded, sealed delivery checks), the reachability states, the registry feedback grades and why feedback is graded rather than counted, the fixed statement layout, the signer, and the rules (nothing written to the registry, no rating ever sold, ChainHelix agents get no verdict).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nowNo
freeNo
paidNo
whatYes
rulesNo
tiersNo
signerNo
chainIdNo
versionYes
howToVerifyNo
statementLayoutNo
identityRegistryNo
reputationRegistryNo
registryFeedbackGradesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / x-lexicon / bundleSha256
      Previous value: -"670f7504e3de5031beccee25a2d24e4515f68b893295f6d5b0d3a0665498b2c9"New value: +"25cc80db6d8e9eac73d47a50f7ad6333a21f1972d008a8fed0159de8bfb4b519"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / x-lexicon / bundleSha256
      Previous value: -"e5b4290024a229f2bdf97f8fc6a0079c3fe13b77267f41fdcffeb8b26aa1c41e"New value: +"670f7504e3de5031beccee25a2d24e4515f68b893295f6d5b0d3a0665498b2c9"
    • changedInput schema / x-lexicon / version
      Previous value: -"0.1.0"New value: +"0.2.0"
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / x-lexicon / bundleSha256
      Previous value: -"a1c2e10fd3177d6b4d59ca78693e8fb36880165cf0f735f680dd86a510411178"New value: +"e5b4290024a229f2bdf97f8fc6a0079c3fe13b77267f41fdcffeb8b26aa1c41e"
  5. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / x-lexicon / bundleSha256
      Previous value: -"1eeb782ee15fe69fc80776948e0556fa6b795e210e6305935b2c97b73d955cda"New value: +"a1c2e10fd3177d6b4d59ca78693e8fb36880165cf0f735f680dd86a510411178"
  6. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / x-lexicon / bundleSha256
      Previous value: -"c014292cad7497ce9fd68c33345ac32cb42b672c8e77d6c749c26e162cc207e4"New value: +"1eeb782ee15fe69fc80776948e0556fa6b795e210e6305935b2c97b73d955cda"
  7. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / x-lexicon
      Added value: +{
      +  "bundleSha256": "c014292cad7497ce9fd68c33345ac32cb42b672c8e77d6c749c26e162cc207e4",
      +  "name": "ChainHelix Agentic Lexicon",
      +  "resolve": "lexicon_resolve",
      +  "spec": "lexicon_spec",
      +  "version": "0.1.0"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / x-vocab
      Added value: +{}
  8. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses domain rules (nothing written to the registry, no rating ever sold, ChainHelix agents get no verdict) but says nothing about the tool's own behavior — though as a zero-param reference read, side-effect risk is low, so this is only a mild gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the core question ('What agent_standing measures and how to verify one') before enumerating contents. It is dense and slightly run-on but every clause maps to real spec content.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and for a zero-param reference tool the description covering evidence tiers, reachability states, feedback grades, layout, signer, and rules is adequate for correct invocation.

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 no parameters, so there are no semantics to document; per the baseline for a parameterless tool, a 4 is appropriate. Nothing in the description contradicts or supplements the empty schema.

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 purpose: it documents what agent_standing measures and how a standing is verified, and names the sibling it explains. It is clearly the reference/spec counterpart to agent_standing, but it stops just short of explicitly saying how the spec differs in use from the data tool.

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?

Implied usage ('how to verify one' suggests consulting it before interpreting or verifying a standing), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many sibling spec tools (attest_spec, proof_spec, delivery_spec). The agent must infer the context.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources