Skip to main content
Glama

intel

by io.chainhelix
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

attestation_stats

Live counts of the attestation stream: committed, anchored, revealed, gaps

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gapsYes
anchorsYes
revealedYes
committedYes
latestSeqYes
awaitingMaturityYes
revealDelayHoursYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / x-lexicon / bundleSha256
      Previous value: -"a1c2e10fd3177d6b4d59ca78693e8fb36880165cf0f735f680dd86a510411178"New value: +"e5b4290024a229f2bdf97f8fc6a0079c3fe13b77267f41fdcffeb8b26aa1c41e"
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / x-lexicon / bundleSha256
      Previous value: -"1eeb782ee15fe69fc80776948e0556fa6b795e210e6305935b2c97b73d955cda"New value: +"a1c2e10fd3177d6b4d59ca78693e8fb36880165cf0f735f680dd86a510411178"
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / x-lexicon / bundleSha256
      Previous value: -"c014292cad7497ce9fd68c33345ac32cb42b672c8e77d6c749c26e162cc207e4"New value: +"1eeb782ee15fe69fc80776948e0556fa6b795e210e6305935b2c97b73d955cda"
  4. 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: +{}
  5. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "anchors": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "awaitingMaturity": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "committed": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "gaps": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "latestSeq": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "revealDelayHours": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "revealed": {
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "committed",
+    "anchors",
+    "latestSeq",
+    "revealed",
+    "gaps",
+    "awaitingMaturity",
+    "revealDelayHours"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  6. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'live counts' and the categories, but does not explain whether counts are cumulative or point-in-time, what 'gaps' means, update frequency, or any operational implications. This is minimal for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded clause that wastes no words. It states the core behavior ('Live counts') and the relevant categories immediately, which is appropriately concise for a zero-parameter tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the low complexity (0 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient for invoking the tool. However, it does not clarify the meaning of 'gaps' or 'anchored', nor does it explain how this relates to sibling attestation tools, leaving some contextual ambiguity for an agent deciding among many similar tools.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4; the description adds nothing about parameters because none exist.

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 description clearly identifies the tool as returning live counts of the attestation stream, with four specific categories: committed, anchored, revealed, and gaps. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'return', so it is not a full 5, but the resource and scope are specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like list_attestations or attest_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as attest_status or list_attestations. It implies aggregate monitoring use through 'live counts', but there is no explicit when/when-not or mention of alternative tools.

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

All intel toolsInspect
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