FOGA node

Roles of a subject in a channel (ERC-8489)

flow_roles

Read-onlyIdempotent

The participation registry's four-valued evaluation of a subject's roles in a channel at the current clock, the summary of role bits it reports, and the subject's bindings there (basis, interval, state). The subject is an address (its eip155-address reference), a canonical subject string or a bytes32 reference; the channel defaults to the market, then to the cell's own channel.

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": {
      "subject": "<subject>"
    },
    "name": "flow_roles"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`roles`	No	the roles to evaluate (default: submit, respond, observe, redistribute)
`subject`	Yes	an address, a canonical subject string (<scheme>:<domain>:<id>) or a bytes32 reference
`channelId`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`asOf`	Yes
`roles`	Yes
`rolesOf`	Yes
`subject`	Yes
`bindings`	Yes
`canonical`	Yes
`channelId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the evaluation is at the current clock (a point-in-time, not historical, read) and that it returns role bits plus bindings with basis/interval/state, which is useful context. It stops short of stating whether evaluation is purely local/derived or hits an external registry, despite openWorldHint=true, leaving the main behavioral question unanswered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no filler, but the purpose is buried in a long noun phrase rather than front-loaded with a verb, and terms like 'four-valued evaluation' and 'at the current clock' cost parsing effort. It is compact but not immediately scannable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still gives subject forms, role defaults, and channel resolution. What remains unexplained is the meaning of 'four-valued' and 'current clock', which are central to interpreting results but not required to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67%, and the description compensates for the undocumented channelId by explaining the fallback resolution (market, then the cell's own channel), which the schema does not say. It also restates the three accepted subject forms consistently with the schema and echoes the roles default, adding modest but real meaning.

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 identifies the resource precisely: a subject's roles in a channel, read from the participation registry, including the role-bit summary and bindings. It is expressed as a noun phrase ('the registry's evaluation of...') rather than a verb, and uses heavy domain jargon ('four-valued evaluation', 'current clock'), but an agent can still tell this apart from the status/resolve/inspect siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only guidance-like content is the defaulting chain for subject form and channel, which is really parameter behavior rather than usage selection.

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

All FOGA node tools Inspect

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.