Skip to main content
Glama

Salesforce AgentForce CKG

by io.github.Yarmoluk

evaluate_trust_chain

Return a machine-readable JSON trust chain + ROI analysis + payment recommendation.

Designed for autonomous agent consumption. The agent reads the JSON, evaluates the ROI gate, selects the cheapest positive-ROI payment option, and purchases autonomously if budget is pre-authorized.

Trust chain closes the audit gap that RAG cannot: source_hashes → SHA-256 of source docs (what was known at extraction time) graph_hash → SHA-256 of the installed graph file (what is declared now) signer_key_id → Ed25519 public key fingerprint (who is attesting) benchmark_receipt → BoundaryAttest-signed F1 claim (cryptographic performance proof) scitt_status → SCITT ledger submission status (public audit anchor)

ROI gate: if total_value_per_call_usd > payment_option.price_per_call_usd → autonomous_pay = true.

Returns: JSON string (schema: ckg-trust-chain-v1).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Explains return format, trust chain components, and ROI logic. Lacks details on side effects or state changes, but tool is read-only.

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?

Well-structured with main purpose followed by bullet details. Slightly verbose in explaining agent behavior, but overall concise and 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?

Given zero parameters, output schema exists, and description explains return content and logic comprehensively. No gaps remain for correct invocation.

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?

Tool has zero parameters; schema coverage is 100%. Baseline of 4 applies as description adds no parameter info beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool returns a machine-readable JSON trust chain, ROI analysis, and payment recommendation. Distinct from sibling tools like export_benchmark_receipt which only exports, or query_ckg which lacks ROI analysis.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides explicit guidance for autonomous agent consumption, including how to interpret ROI and proceed with payment. Does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but context is clear.

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

All Salesforce AgentForce CKG 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools serve clearly distinct roles: querying, searching, routing, and verification are separate concerns. However, query_ckg and get_prerequisites both return prerequisite information, which could cause an agent to select the wrong tool when a simple prerequisite list is needed. The descriptions do clarify the difference (generic traversal vs. full ordered chain), but some ambiguity remains.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, such as evaluate_trust_chain, list_concepts, and route_query. The only exception is resolution_path, which is a noun phrase rather than a verb_noun, making it slightly less predictable. This is a minor deviation from an otherwise strong pattern.

Tool Count5/5

With 10 tools, the server has a well-scoped surface area for a knowledge graph that requires discovery, traversal, routing, and audit capabilities. Each tool represents a distinct operation, and there are no redundant or unnecessary entries. This falls comfortably within the ideal range for a domain-specific server.

Completeness5/5

The toolset covers the full read-side lifecycle of the knowledge graph: discovery, traversal, path analysis, routing, and trust verification. It also includes specialized tools for benchmarking and source verification, which are unusual but valuable additions. No obvious critical gaps exist, such as missing search or traversal capabilities.

Resources