Constitutional AI kernel with 13 MCP tools, 888_JUDGE verdict pipeline, and VAULT999 ledger.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 2.3/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct kernel function: initialization, observation, reasoning, judgment, routing, execution, memory, and sealing. The abstract descriptions could cause slight confusion, but the KERNEL labels and verb-noun distinctions make roles reasonably clear.
All tools share the 'arif_' prefix and are mostly single verbs (init, observe, think, judge, route, forge, seal) but 'memory' is a noun, breaking the pattern slightly. Naming is otherwise consistent and predictable.
Eight tools provide a well-scoped surface for a constitutional AI kernel, covering initiation, perception, reasoning, arbitration, execution, memory, and immutable sealing. The count feels appropriate for the stated purpose without redundancy or bloat.
The kernel covers the core lifecycle: init, observe, think, judge, act, and store. Minor gaps exist, such as the absence of a tool for updating or amending constitutional rules, but the primary workflows are supported.
arif_forge777 Forge · Execute GateCKERNEL 777 · Execution gate via A-FORGE — mutates only after SEAL verdict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | engineer | |
| query | No | ||
| plan_id | No | ||
| actor_id | No | ||
| manifest | No | ||
| _envelope | No | ||
| session_id | No | ||
| arif_ack_id | No | ||
| artifact_id | No | ||
| session_token | No | SCT from arif_init — continuity for ChatGPT multi-call path | |
| vault_entry_id | No | ||
| seal_verdict_id | No | ||
| ack_irreversible | No | ||
| judge_state_hash | No | ||
| approved_action_hash | No | ||
| constitutional_chain_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds that mutation occurs 'only after SEAL verdict,' which provides some behavioral context beyond the annotations' destructiveHint. However, it does not elaborate on what mutation entails, what gets affected, or any side effects. Given annotations already indicate destruction, this is marginal improvement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (single sentence), but it sacrifices clarity and completeness. While brevity is valued, essential information is missing, making it less useful than a slightly longer but more informative description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's high complexity (16 parameters, no output schema, cryptic sibling names), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the tool's purpose in practical terms, the meaning of modes, or how to use it effectively, leaving major gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 6% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining any of the 16 parameters. Only one parameter (session_token) has a schema description. The tool description adds no parameter meaning, leaving the agent with minimal guidance for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description indicates it is an execution gate that mutates only after a SEAL verdict, but the purpose is vague and does not clearly explain what the tool does concretely. The cryptic phrasing 'KERNEL 777 · Execution gate via A-FORGE' lacks specificity, though it does mention a verb-resource relation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (arif_init, arif_judge, etc.) or any context for appropriate invocation. There are no 'when-not-to-use' or alternative suggestions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
arif_init000 Init · Kernel SessionCInspectKERNEL 000 · Session ignition — binds actor, floors, and audit before any other arif_* verb.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | init | |
| nonce | No | ||
| intent | No | ||
| context | No | ||
| payload | No | ||
| tooling | No | ||
| verbose | No | ||
| actor_id | No | ||
| epoch_id | No | ||
| evidence | No | ||
| trace_id | No | ||
| _envelope | No | ||
| verbosity | No | minimal | |
| session_id | No | ||
| agent_policy | No | ||
| auth_context | No | ||
| counterparty | No | ||
| sovereign_id | No | ||
| session_token | No | ||
| actor_signature | No | ||
| caller_actor_id | No | ||
| delegation_mode | No | ||
| idempotency_key | No | ||
| ack_irreversible | No | ||
| executor_actor_id | No | ||
| declared_model_key | No | ||
| client_capabilities | No | ||
| requested_authority | No | OBSERVE_ONLY | |
| previous_session_hash | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the ordering constraint ('before any other arif_* verb'), but otherwise relies on annotations. It does not disclose specific side effects, authentication requirements, or error behavior. Given that readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false are already present, the additional behavioral context is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single dense sentence that is front-loaded with a title-like header. It is concise and avoids waste, but the heavy jargon makes it cryptic rather than clearly structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high complexity (29 params, no output schema), a one-sentence metaphor is wholly inadequate. No return values, side effects, prerequisites, or error conditions are described.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 29 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no guidance on any parameter. Terms like 'actor' and 'audit' are not mapped to schema fields, leaving agents without clues for correct usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses metaphor ('ignition', 'binds') and jargon ('actor, floors, audit') without explaining the functional purpose. It implies a session initialization step but does not clearly state what the tool does or how it differs from sibling tools like arif_think or arif_observe.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'before any other arif_* verb' explicitly indicates that this tool should be used first as an initialization step. However, it does not provide exclusions or mention alternatives, so it is clear but lacks full comparative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
arif_judge888 Judge · VerdictCKERNEL 888 · Constitutional verdict — binding SEAL/HOLD/SABAR/VOID arbitration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | judge | |
| nonce | No | ||
| domain | No | ||
| key_id | No | ||
| actor_B | No | ||
| actor_id | No | ||
| evidence | No | ||
| _envelope | No | ||
| actor_Phi | No | ||
| candidate | No | ||
| session_id | No | ||
| action_tier | No | standard | |
| niat_params | No | ||
| action_class | No | ||
| blast_radius | No | ||
| seal_purpose | No | ||
| session_token | No | ||
| context_source | No | ||
| heart_critique | No | ||
| vault_entry_id | No | ||
| actor_signature | No | ||
| entropy_pathway | No | ||
| entropy_receipt | No | ||
| authority_effect | No | ||
| cooldown_entry_id | No | ||
| sovereign_receipt | No | ||
| reversibility_level | No | ||
| requested_capability | No | ||
| constitutional_chain_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds little about runtime behavior. 'Binding' might imply an authoritative decision, but it does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, what side effects (if any) occur, or why it is safe. While there is no direct contradiction, the description fails to provide meaningful behavioral context beyond what annotations already give.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence but packed with obscure branding like 'KERNEL 888' and cryptic terminology. It is under-specified rather than concise; the sentence does not earn its place because it communicates little actionable information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 29 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is severely inadequate. Without usage guidance, behavioral details, or parameter explanations, the agent cannot reliably select or invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 29 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no parameter-level semantics. Even the enum 'mode' values (intercept, judge, validate, hold, escalate) are not explained, leaving the agent unable to determine what each mode does or how parameters relate to the 'SEAL/HOLD/SABAR/VOID' verdicts.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description indicates this tool renders a 'Constitutional verdict' via 'binding SEAL/HOLD/SABAR/VOID arbitration,' which conveys a general arbitration/judging purpose. However, it lacks a clear verb and resource, leaning on brand-like terminology ('KERNEL 888') without explaining what the tool actually does or how it differs from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like arif_seal or arif_route. The phrase 'Constitutional verdict' hints at high-level decisions, but there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
arif_memoryMemory Governor · KernelCKERNEL memory governor — L1–L6 governed semantic recall, storage, and persistence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | recall | |
| tier | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| scope | No | ||
| top_k | No | ||
| aspect | No | ||
| hybrid | No | ||
| policy | No | ||
| cascade | No | ||
| content | No | ||
| include | No | ||
| payload | No | ||
| seal_id | No | ||
| to_tier | No | ||
| actor_id | No | ||
| lease_id | No | ||
| metadata | No | ||
| trace_id | No | ||
| _envelope | No | ||
| from_tier | No | ||
| memory_id | No | ||
| tier_hint | No | ||
| timestamp | No | ||
| provenance | No | ||
| redact_pii | No | ||
| session_id | No | ||
| structured | No | ||
| graph_first | No | ||
| new_content | No | ||
| truth_class | No | ||
| caller_chain | No | ||
| future_value | No | ||
| memory_class | No | ||
| policy_basis | No | ||
| applicability | No | ||
| embedding_ref | No | ||
| include_proof | No | ||
| session_token | No | ||
| vault_version | No | ||
| human_approval | No | ||
| new_structured | No | ||
| temporal_as_of | No | ||
| tombstone_text | No | ||
| idempotency_key | No | ||
| new_truth_class | No | ||
| resolution_kind | No | ||
| source_receipts | No | ||
| correction_event | No | ||
| memory_authority | No | ||
| promotion_reason | No | ||
| include_contested | No | ||
| progressive_level | No | ||
| require_human_ack | No | ||
| time_window_hours | No | ||
| decision_lifecycle | No | ||
| organ_staleness_band | No | ||
| supersedes_memory_id | No | ||
| minimised_vault_record | No | ||
| required_floors_satisfied | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description only adds 'L1–L6 governed' and 'semantic recall, storage, and persistence' which are vague. It does not elaborate on what gets destroyed, side effects, or authorization needs. The added behavioral context is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is dense with jargon ('governed', 'L1–L6', 'semantic recall') and lacks clarity. It front-loads 'KERNEL memory governor' but does not effectively communicate the tool's purpose in simple terms.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (59 parameters, no required, no output schema, destructive annotation), the description is severely lacking. It does not explain return values, behavior of different modes, or provide examples. The description is inadequate for an agent to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 59 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no explanation of any parameter. It hints at tier levels but does not map to the 'mode', 'tier', or other key parameters. The agent has no guidance on how to use the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it is a 'memory governor' for 'L1–L6 governed semantic recall, storage, and persistence,' which vaguely indicates a memory management tool. However, it does not clearly specify a single verb+resource combination and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like arif_think or arif_observe.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There are no statements about prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools. The description offers no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
arif_observe111 Observe · Sense RealityDKERNEL 111 · Sense reality into evidence with epistemic tags and uncertainty bounds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| mode | No | search | |
| query | No | ||
| layers | No | ||
| actor_id | No | ||
| _envelope | No | ||
| session_id | No | ||
| result_limit | No | ||
| session_token | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, providing a safe behavioral profile. The description adds that the tool produces 'evidence with epistemic tags and uncertainty bounds,' which gives some extra context but doesn't elaborate on side effects, auth needs, or rate limits. The annotations carry most of the burden, so a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence), which is concise, but it sacrifices substance. For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the brevity leads to under-specification. It is not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, 0 required, no output schema), the description provides almost no complete picture. It mentions epistemic tags and uncertainty but omits what the tool returns, how modes differ, and how parameters interact. The annotations help but cannot compensate for the lack of concrete operational details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain any of the 9 parameters. Cryptic parameters like '_envelope', 'layers', and the eight distinct modes (e.g., 'entropy_dS', 'compass') are left entirely unexplained. The agent cannot determine how to set values correctly based on the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses poetic language ('sense reality into evidence') but lacks concrete specifics about what the tool does. It hints at gathering data with epistemic tags but doesn't clarify the operation. The name 'observe' and 'KERNEL 111' suggest a sensing function, but the purpose is vague compared to sibling tools like arif_forge or arif_judge.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like arif_memory or arif_judge. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers, making it hard for an agent to decide when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
arif_route444 Route · Intent→OrganAKERNEL 444 · Intent→organ router — dispatches to GEOX/WEALTH/WELL/A-FORGE.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | No | Alias for intent (backward compat). | |
| organ | No | Optional explicit organ override. If provided, intent matching is skipped and this organ is used directly. | |
| intent | No | Natural-language description of what the user wants. e.g. "interpret this seismic section", "assess portfolio risk" | |
| actor_id | No | Calling actor. | |
| _envelope | No | ||
| arguments | No | Arguments to pass to organ_tool. | |
| mission_id | No | Explicit human-cockpit mission binding (investigate|interpret| decide|build|monitor|remember). When set, skips keyword classification and binds the six-mission plan. Preferred over free-text when the agent already knows the mission. | |
| organ_tool | No | The tool name on the target organ to call. If absent, returns routing decision only (no bridge call). | |
| session_id | No | Governing session. | |
| session_token | No | SCT from arif_init (ChatGPT continuity). | |
| contract_c_kwargs | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true) already declare the safety profile, so the description carries less burden. It adds the target organ names (GEOX/WEALTH/WELL/A-FORGE) but does not disclose whether it executes the target tool or just returns a routing decision, which is a key behavioral nuance.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose ('KERNEL 444 · Intent→organ router'), and every word contributes meaning. No wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is complex (11 optional parameters, no output schema), but the description does not explain return values, the optional routing decision vs. bridge call behavior, or how to use the parameters. Critical context is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is high (82%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond identifying the routing targets, and it does not compensate for the undocumented parameters (e.g., _envelope, contract_c_kwargs).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as an 'Intent→organ router' with a specific dispatch function to GEOX/WEALTH/WELL/A-FORGE. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like arif_forge or arif_think, which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used for routing intents to organs, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternative tools or provide any exclusion scenarios. The 'router' label gives contextual cues but lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
arif_seal999 Seal · VAULT999DKERNEL 999 · VAULT999 immutable append — irreversible civilizational memory sealing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | seal | |
| nonce | No | ||
| payload | No | ||
| actor_id | No | ||
| _envelope | No | ||
| session_id | No | ||
| drift_events | No | ||
| seal_purpose | No | ||
| witness_type | No | ai | |
| session_token | No | ||
| constitutional | No | ||
| actor_signature | No | ||
| ack_irreversible | No | ||
| judge_state_hash | No | ||
| constitutional_chain_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description's word 'irreversible' aligns with that, so no contradiction. However, the description adds no meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation—it doesn't disclose what data gets destroyed, what appends to the ledger, whether session tokens or actor signatures are required, or what ack_irreversible gates. For a destructive tool with no other context, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (a single sentence), which could be seen as concise. However, this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness—there is virtually no actionable content. It front-loads branding language but provides no substantive guidance, so brevity is not earned.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 15 parameters, no output schema, no param coverage, and only two annotations, the description is profoundly inadequate. The tool appears to be a complex sealing/ledger operation with multiple modes, cryptographic fields (actor_signature, judge_state_hash, nonce), and side effects (irreversible, destructive). A single cryptic sentence cannot make such a tool safely invocable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must bear full responsibility for explaining the 15 parameters. The description mentions none of them—not mode, not payload, not seal_purpose, not ack_irreversible, not actor_signature. The mode enum offers six distinct operations with zero explanation. This is a severe gap for a tool with 15 parameters and no param documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses cryptic 'KERNEL 999 · VAULT999 immutable append — irreversible civilizational memory sealing' phrasing. It conveys that this is an append/sealing operation with irreversible memory implications, but the verb and resource are obscured behind brand-like labels. It doesn't clearly state what action the agent performs or distinguish from siblings like arif_forge or arif_judge.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The mode parameter offers distinct operations (seal, verify, ledger, audit, session_close) but the description doesn't explain when each should be selected or how this differs from sibling tools. The 'ack_irreversible' flag hints users must acknowledge irreversibility, but no guidance exists on the decision process.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
arif_think333 Think · MindDKERNEL 333 · Mind — structured reasoning under F2/F7 with OBS/DER/INT/SPEC labels.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | reason | |
| query | No | ||
| plan_id | No | ||
| actor_id | No | ||
| _envelope | No | ||
| session_id | No | ||
| witness_type | No | ai | |
| session_token | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which already cover the safety profile. The description adds 'structured reasoning' behavior but uses undecipherable labels (OBS/DER/INT/SPEC) without explaining what outputs or side effects occur. Since annotations are rich and the description doesn't contradict them, it earns a baseline 3 but adds minimal distinct behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and highly concise. However, its brevity is under-specification rather than efficient communication; the jargon-laden content ('F2/F7', 'OBS/DER/INT/SPEC', 'KERNEL 333') fails to serve the reader. It is technically short but not well-structured for comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a complex tool with 8 parameters, a 12-value enum, no output schema, and no parameter documentation. The description explains none of the mode semantics, the purpose of plan_id/actor_id/session_id/witness_type/token, or what 'structured reasoning' produces. For an agent to use this tool correctly across 12 different modes without any field or behavior documentation is effectively impossible.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides zero parameter explanations. The most important parameter is 'mode' with a 12-value enum (reason, reflect, verify, axioms, plan, plan_review, plan_approve, refactor_plan, metabolize, simulate, wonder, atlas), none of which are described. The description references 'OBS/DER/INT/SPEC' but never maps them to the mode values or query semantics. With 8 parameters and 0% coverage, the description fails entirely to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'KERNEL 333 · Mind — structured reasoning under F2/F7 with OBS/DER/INT/SPEC labels' references internal jargon ('KERNEL 333', 'F2/F7', 'OBS/DER/INT/SPEC') with no explanation. It states 'structured reasoning' but does not clearly state what the tool does, what a user achieves by calling it, or how it differs from siblings like arif_judge or arif_observe. For an agent without domain-specific context, this is nearly opaque.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'structured reasoning' but never states when an agent should invoke arif_think instead of arif_forge, arif_judge, or arif_route. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!