Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

SAAX Protocol

by io.github.bryantrudy24
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List evidence for a commitment

list_evidence

Returns the durable evidence records for a commitment (stable identifiers, integrity references, submitter attribution, status, timestamps � never raw payload content). The caller must present an EIP-712 authority proof and hold an active authorization on the commitment. Commitment-scoped: callers with no authorization on the commitment see nothing. Optional status filter (submitted|verified|rejected|disputed). Read-only.

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>",
      "proof": "<proof>"
    },
    "name": "list_evidence"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax records (default 50)
proofYesThe EIP-712 AuthorityProof
offsetNoPagination offset
statusNoFilter by evidence status
agentIdYesThe caller's agent identity
commitmentIdYesThe commitment ID whose evidence to list

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does: it declares read-only semantics, the authentication/authorization requirements, the commitment-scoped visibility rule, and the deliberate omission of raw payload content. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before calling and are not derivable from the schema.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the return shape, then the access requirements, then scope, then the filter — a logical order with no filler. Minor waste: repeating the status enum already present in the schema, and a stray encoding artifact ("") in the parenthetical.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return content, and it does by naming the record fields and ruling out payloads. For a tool with an auth-gated, commitment-scoped read, the remaining gaps (result ordering, pagination behavior beyond the offset parameter) are small.

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%, so all six parameters including proof, agentId, and commitmentId are already documented in the schema. The description restates the status filter and its enum values, which duplicates rather than extends the schema, and adds no new meaning about pagination or proof construction. Baseline 3 applies.

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 durable evidence records for a commitment") and immediately enumerates what a record contains (stable identifiers, integrity references, submitter attribution, status, timestamps) while excluding raw payload content. An agent can tell this is a scoped read of evidence metadata, not of evidence bytes.

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?

Gives clear preconditions for use: an EIP-712 authority proof plus an active authorization on the commitment, and warns that unauthorized callers on that commitment see nothing. It does not name an alternative for related reads (e.g. verification status) or state when to prefer a different sibling, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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