Skip to main content
Glama

Salesforce AgentForce CKG

by io.github.Yarmoluk

export_benchmark_receipt

Generate a signed BoundaryAttest receipt for the agentforce CKG benchmark result.

Produces a ckg.benchmark_result.exported claim signed with this server's Ed25519 session key. Any party holding the public key can verify the signature over the canonical JSON claim. Implements GuardrailDecisionV1 · experimental-interop-v0.1.

Result: F1 0.471 over 30 queries · ckg-benchmark v0.6.2 · 4× over RAG baseline (0.123).

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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses key behavioral traits: generates a signed receipt using Ed25519 key, describes claim format and verifiability. No annotations provided, but the description is informative. Lacks mention of side effects or permissions.

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?

Four sentences, each adding value: purpose, cryptographic details, standards, example output. Efficient and well-structured, though the example result sentence is a bit technical.

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?

Complete for a parameterless tool with output schema. Explains what the receipt is, how it is signed, and includes an example. Could note when the tool is relevant, but overall sufficient.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description focuses on output instead, which is appropriate. No additional parameter meaning needed.

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 verb 'Generate' and the resource 'signed BoundaryAttest receipt' for benchmark results. The description explains the purpose and distinguishes from sibling tools like query_ckg and verify_source.

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?

Does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives. Mentions implementation details (GuardrailDecisionV1) but no guidance on when to avoid or prefer other tools.

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