Skip to main content
Glama

intel

by io.chainhelix
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

proof_spec

The machine verification spec for the ChainHelix attestation stream

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

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: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "The chainhelix-proof-v1 verification spec document",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  6. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it only states what the tool is, not what happens when it is invoked. It does not explicitly say whether the call is read-only, returns a static document, or has any side effects, although 'spec' weakly implies a non-mutating retrieval.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence with no filler, and the core subject is front-loaded. It is appropriately short, though it could have used the space to disambiguate from sibling spec tools.

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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient, but the large sibling set of *_spec tools creates real ambiguity. The definition does not provide enough context for an agent to reliably distinguish this specification from other specification-returning 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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are fully covered by the schema and there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because the lack of parameters removes the need for semantic explanation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a concrete resource—the machine verification spec for the ChainHelix attestation stream—so it is not a tautology, but it uses no verb and does not differentiate proof_spec from the many sibling *_spec tools such as attest_spec, delivery_spec, or receipt_spec. An agent could infer it returns a spec, but not why this spec is distinct from related ones.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use proof_spec versus alternatives like attest_spec or delivery_spec. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues beyond the name and nominal description.

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