Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

InterAI Risk Oracle

by io.github.InterAILabs
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get Trust Receipt

oracle.get_trust_receipt
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read-only lookup of the canonical public representation and signature metadata for a trust receipt that already exists. Supply receipt_id. It does not create or re-run a decision; use oracle.verify_trust_receipt_signature when the goal is signature validation.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "receipt_id": "<receipt_id>"
    },
    "name": "oracle.get_trust_receipt"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
receipt_idYesIdentifier of the existing InterAI trust receipt whose canonical public representation and signature metadata should be returned.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
trustYes
receiptYes
verificationYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Canonical public representation, signature metadata, and trust fields for an existing InterAI receipt.",
+  "properties": {
+    "ok": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "receipt": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "properties": {
+        "decision_basis": {
+          "additionalProperties": true,
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "issued_at": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "oracle_version": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "receipt_id": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "request_hash": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "signals_version": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "receipt_id",
+        "issued_at",
+        "request_hash"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "trust": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "properties": {
+        "confidence_band": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "domain": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "risk_level": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "trust_score": {
+          "type": "number"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "domain",
+        "trust_score",
+        "risk_level",
+        "confidence_band"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "verification": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "properties": {
+        "signature": {
+          "type": [
+            "string",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        },
+        "signature_alg": {
+          "type": [
+            "string",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        },
+        "signed": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "signed",
+        "signature",
+        "signature_alg"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ok",
+    "receipt",
+    "verification",
+    "trust"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / description
      Added value: +"Lookup input for a trust receipt that already exists in InterAI."
    • addedInput schema / properties / receipt_id / description
      Added value: +"Identifier of the existing InterAI trust receipt whose canonical public representation and signature metadata should be returned."
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying it does not create or re-run a decision and that the receipt must already exist, which goes beyond the annotations' implicit implications.

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?

Two sentences accomplish everything: the first states the operation and its scope, the second explicitly excludes common misconceptions and routes to the sibling. There is zero waste and all information is front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With a single parameter, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description provides all necessary context. It also tells the agent when not to use the tool. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the sole parameter receipt_id is fully documented. The description mentions 'Supply receipt_id' but adds no new meaning beyond that; the schema already explains the identifier. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Read-only lookup') and resource ('canonical public representation and signature metadata for a trust receipt'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling oracle.verify_trust_receipt_signature by explicitly naming it, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description identifies when to use this tool (already-existing receipts) and when not to ('It does not create or re-run a decision') and explicitly points to the correct alternative (oracle.verify_trust_receipt_signature) when validation is the goal. Nothing is left to inference.

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

All InterAI Risk Oracle 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