Ambr

ambr_agent_handshake

Idempotent

Initiate a handshake on a contract on behalf of your delegating principal.

Requires an API key with an active delegation (principal wallet registered via /api/v1/delegations). Records the agent's intent to accept, reject, or request changes on the contract. The principal must separately approve via wallet signature on the Reader Portal.

Args:

contract_id (string, required): Contract ID (amb-YYYY-NNNN), SHA-256 hash, or UUID
intent (string, required): "accept" | "reject" | "request_changes"
message (string, optional): Note for the counterparty
visibility_preference (string, optional): "private" | "metadata_only" | "public" | "encrypted"

Returns: Handshake status and next steps for principal approval.

Legibility: the handshake itself is auditable — delegation scope, agent identity, and principal approval are recorded alongside the contract hash.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`intent`	Yes	Handshake intent
`message`	No	Optional note for counterparty
`contract_id`	Yes	Contract ID, SHA-256 hash, or UUID
`visibility_preference`	No	Optional visibility preference for negotiation

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description explains that the action records agent intent, requires principal approval, and is auditable, providing useful behavioral context.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, requirements, args, returns, legibility). It is not overly verbose but could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, 2 required, no output schema), the description covers purpose, prerequisites, parameter details, and expected output. It is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 the schema already documents parameters. The description lists args but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly specifies the tool's action: initiating a handshake on a contract as an agent. It distinguishes from siblings (e.g., create_contract, get_contract) by focusing on recording intent and requiring principal approval.

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?

Prerequisites are stated (API key with active delegation, principal must separately approve). Context for use is implied but explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are not provided.

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

All Ambr 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

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: create, retrieve, list templates, verify, and handshake are separate actions. The main confusion risk is between ambr_get_contract and ambr_get_contract_status, both take an id and return contract state, though the status tool emphasizes amendment-chain history.

Naming Consistency4/5

The ambr_ prefix and snake_case convention are applied consistently, with clear verb-like action words for most tools. ambr_agent_handshake deviates slightly from the clean verb_noun pattern, but the overall naming remains predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is a well-scoped size for a contract-management domain. Each tool covers an essential interaction: template discovery, contract creation, retrieval, status checking, hash verification, and counterparty handshake communication.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is covered well: create, retrieve, check status, verify, and act on a contract. Notable gaps include no tool to list a user's own contracts or explicitly terminate one, but these can be worked around or may be intentionally handled outside the API since contracts are likely immutable.

Resources

Need Help?