Skip to main content
Glama

Council of AI GSPC

by io.github.CSOAI-ORG
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

One public-root card-v0 leaf

get_card
Read-onlyIdempotent

GET one public-root card-v0 leaf by sha256 (64 hex) from https://councilof.ai/cards/{sha16}.json. UNMEASURED cells stay visible. Three states: VALID (fetched), INVALID (not a leaf of the live root), UNCHECKABLE (fetch failed). Not a GSPC measurement-card.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sha256Yes64-char hex payload SHA-256 of the card-v0 leaf.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stateYesVALID, INVALID or UNCHECKABLE
reasonNo
sha256No
sourceNo
surfaceNo
not_gspcNo
unmeasuredNo
sig_ed25519No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "not_gspc": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "reason": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "sha256": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "sig_ed25519": {},
+    "source": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "state": {
+      "description": "VALID, INVALID or UNCHECKABLE",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "surface": {},
+    "unmeasured": {}
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "state"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "not_gspc": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "reason": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "sha256": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "sig_ed25519": {},
-    "source": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "state": {
-      "description": "VALID, INVALID or UNCHECKABLE",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "surface": {},
-    "unmeasured": {}
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "state"
-  ],
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "not_gspc": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "reason": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "sha256": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "sig_ed25519": {},
+    "source": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "state": {
+      "description": "VALID, INVALID or UNCHECKABLE",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "surface": {},
+    "unmeasured": {}
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "state"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the three states (VALID, INVALID, UNCHECKABLE), the visible UNMEASURED cells, and the source URL. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every sentence contributes: the URL, the states, and the exclusion of GSPC measurement cards. No filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers the states, the URL, and the card type, and the annotations handle safety. It is sufficiently complete for a single-card fetch, though it could briefly mention alternatives (addressed in usage guidelines).

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 already documents the parameter (64-char hex SHA-256) with 100% coverage, so the description repeats that. It adds the URL pattern and confirms the purpose, but no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 (GET), a precise resource (card-v0 leaf), and the exact identifier (sha256 hex). It also distinguishes itself from a sibling class ('Not a GSPC measurement-card'), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 usage for fetching a specific public-root card by hash and clarifies it is not a GSPC measurement-card, but it does not explicitly contrast with other siblings like verify_card or get_root. There is no 'use this when' or 'instead of' guidance, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing among related tools.

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
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