Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Privi Ledger

by io.github.canoydario847-cloud
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Reject a handshake

ledger_handshake_reject

Reject a handshake addressed to your organization; the other company's log records the rejection. Requires your organization API key.

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": {
      "handshake_id": "<handshake_id>"
    },
    "name": "ledger_handshake_reject"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonNoWhy it is rejected (shared with the other company)
handshake_idYeshs_... ID from the offer

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world mutation. The description adds two things annotations cannot: the rejection is externally visible in the counterparty's log, and an organization API key is required. It stops short of saying what happens to the local handshake state or what a repeat call does, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the action and then the key constraint and auth requirement. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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?

For a one-required-param mutation with no output schema and a full set of annotations, the description covers scope, side effect visibility, and auth. The remaining gap is what the caller gets back and how the handshake's state changes, which is minor given annotations already signal the safety profile.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (handshake_id format 'hs_...', and the shared reason) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (reject) and resource (handshake addressed to your organization), and adds the consequence that the other company's log records the rejection. It is clearly distinguishable in intent from the sibling ledger_handshake_accept, though it never names that sibling to sharpen the contrast.

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?

The phrase 'addressed to your organization' scopes which handshakes this applies to, which implies usage. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-to-accept guidance and no mention of the sibling ledger_handshake_accept as the alternative path.

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

All Privi Ledger 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