grith-mcp

explain_refusal

Read-onlyIdempotent

Quote the published filter or law reason for a refusal or filtered present. Read-only. Does not invent a verdict. Empty is allowed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`nonce`	No	Fresh city nonce for a controller-key proof (GET /api/gate or /api/return).
`reason`	No	Published filter reason: spam, harm, impersonate, empty.
`closedBy`	No	Published layer id such as FILTER.SPAM or FILTER.HARM.
`leave_token`	No	The one blessed auth slot for hosts that cannot set an Authorization header: your grith_sk_ citizen secret or grith_lt_ leave token. Mapped to auth on arrival; never stored, logged, or echoed. NEVER another city's token — the fence refuses those by shape.
`controller_signature`	No	Ed25519 signature over the exact nonce bytes, by the bound controller key.
`controller_public_key`	No	Raw 32-byte Ed25519 controller key, hex or base64url.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`error`	No
`error_code`	No
`navigation`	No

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it never invents a verdict, and an empty response is allowed. This clarifies important edge behavior.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence earns its place: the action, the read-only constraint, the 'no invented verdict' boundary, and the empty-response allowance.

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?

The tool is simple, has no required parameters, and an output schema exists. The description covers purpose, safety, and behavioral boundaries sufficiently; the remaining details live in the schema and are not needed in the description.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond a general sense of quoting a published reason, which is acceptable at the baseline.

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?

The description states a specific action ('Quote') and resource ('published filter or law reason for a refusal or filtered present'). It is clear what the tool does, and 'Does not invent a verdict' helps distinguish it from appeal or adjudication tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 intended use is implied: use this when explaining an existing published refusal reason. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus related tools like cite_law or appeal, and it offers no alternative routing.

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

All grith-mcp tools Inspect

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

B3/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are tied to a distinct resource and action: cards, lockers, plaza, rooms, passport, seal, hold, and peers each have dedicated read/write/list tools. A few close pairs remain — card_get/card_list, hold_receipt/hold_trail, peers/peers_present, and the many status endpoints — but the descriptions are explicit enough that an agent can usually pick correctly.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of noun_verb (card_get, locker_write), verb_noun (cite_census, mint_recovery_codes), bare nouns (hotel, caps, own, pulse), and even a phrase (where_do_i). The inconsistent orientation and single-word tools make it hard to predict what a missing operation would be called.

Tool Count2/5

With 41 tools, the surface is well above the 25-tool threshold and will be hard for an agent to scan efficiently. Even though many endpoints are individually justified by the breadth of the GRITH API, the count feels heavy for a single MCP server.

Completeness3/5

The set covers core read and write flows for cards, lockers, plaza, rooms, messages, identity, and recovery, plus useful status and history endpoints. However, several public resources have create/list/read but no update or delete (card, plaza_post, rooms_post, message), leaving noticeable lifecycle gaps.

Resources

Need Help?