Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

SAAX Protocol

by io.github.bryantrudy24
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get the durable lifecycle journal for a commitment

get_commitment_history

Returns the append-only lifecycle event ledger for a commitment � every recorded transition with actor, authority reference, state version, and evidence reference. The caller must present an EIP-712 authority proof binding its identity to the commitment. Read-only; reconciles the authoritative commitment before returning. For a compact status, use get_commitment_status; for recovery guidance, use get_recovery_status.

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": {
      "commitmentId": "<commitmentId>",
      "agentId": "<agentId>",
      "role": "<role>",
      "proof": "<proof>"
    },
    "name": "get_commitment_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
roleYesThe caller's role on this commitment
proofYesEIP-712 AuthorityProof signed by the caller (issuer = signer)
agentIdYesThe caller's durable agent identifier
commitmentIdYesThe commitment id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it declares read-only semantics, an authentication requirement (EIP-712 authority proof binding caller identity to the commitment), and a non-obvious side effect (the authoritative commitment is reconciled before returning). It does not cover result size, ordering, or whether the ledger can be paginated — notable gaps for an append-only journal that could be long.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose and payload first, authentication and reconciliation behavior second, sibling routing last. No redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back; it does so by listing the per-event fields. Combined with the auth and reconciliation notes, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though ordering, pagination, and volume expectations for a potentially large ledger are left unspecified.

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%, including the role enum and the nested proof object, so the schema already explains all four parameters. The description adds only indirect meaning — it clarifies that the proof binds the caller's identity to the commitment, which reinforces the schema's proof description, but does not explain role or agentId usage beyond what is documented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns the append-only lifecycle event ledger for a commitment, enumerating what each entry contains (actor, authority reference, state version, evidence reference). It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_commitment_status (compact status) and get_recovery_status (recovery guidance), so an agent can separate it from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Names two concrete alternatives and the condition that selects each: use get_commitment_status for a compact status and get_recovery_status for recovery guidance, implying this tool is for the full audit trail. It also states the precondition for calling it at all — the caller must present an EIP-712 authority proof.

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

All SAAX Protocol 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