Skip to main content
Glama

Council of AI GSPC

by io.github.CSOAI-ORG

get_axis

One axis row from the live GSPC board at https://councilof.ai/api/gspc: n, accuracy, interval, MEASURED or UNMEASURED status, family, and dates. An unmeasured axis is a first-class answer — a declared slot with no run behind it, published so the gap is visible — never an error and never a zero. Never a certification.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
axisYesThe axis name as it appears on the board, e.g. governance, safety, jail, provenance-controls. Case-insensitive. An unknown name returns the list of names the board actually carries.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It explicitly discloses that an unmeasured axis is a first-class answer, never an error, never a zero, and never a certification, which prevents serious misinterpretation of the response.

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 compact and front-loaded: it immediately names the resource and URL, then lists fields, and then clarifies a critical behavioral nuance. Every sentence earns its place and there is no repetition of schema information.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields and explaining the most important edge semantics. It is complete enough for a simple lookup tool, though it does not describe the exact JSON shape or error handling beyond the schema's unknown-name note.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage and already explains the axis parameter, including case-insensitivity and the unknown-name fallback. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: fetching one axis row from the live GSPC board, and enumerates the exact fields returned. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_card or board_totals because it focuses on axis rows.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool—when you need a single axis row from the board—but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling names hint at other use cases, but the description itself gives no direct routing guidance.

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

All Council of AI GSPC toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool maps to a distinct operation: aggregate board totals, one axis row, a card leaf, the public root, the card index, signature verification, and inclusion verification. The descriptions carefully separate overlapping concepts such as measured vs. unmeasured, GSPC vs. public-root, and signature vs. inclusion, so an agent is unlikely to select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern: get_axis, get_card, get_root, list_cards, verify_card, verify_inclusion. board_totals breaks the pattern by using a noun phrase rather than an imperative verb, but the naming is still snake_case, readable, and not chaotic.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is well-scoped for a read-and-verify service: two GSPC board queries, three root/card retrieval or listing operations, and two verification checks. Each tool earns its place and there is no obvious redundancy.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full read/verify lifecycle: board totals, individual axes, root and card retrieval, card listing, signature verification, and merkle inclusion checks. Write or admin operations are not implied by the server's purpose, so there are no apparent dead ends.

Resources