Ambr

ambr_get_contract

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a contract by ID, SHA-256 hash, or UUID.

With a valid API key (contract creator): returns the full contract including human-readable text, machine-readable JSON, status, and principal declaration. Without authentication: returns metadata only (contract_id, status, hash, dates).

Supports three lookup formats:

Contract ID: "amb-2026-0042"
SHA-256 hash: 64-character hex string
UUID: Standard UUID format

Args:

id (string, required): Contract ID, SHA-256 hash, or UUID

Returns: Full contract (if authorized) or metadata-only response.

Legibility: retrieval preserves the dual-format pairing — prose and JSON always replay to the same SHA-256.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Contract ID (amb-YYYY-NNNN), SHA-256 hash, or UUID

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context on the dual-format pairing and legibility guarantee, and explains the difference in responses based on authentication, going beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 well-structured with sections, bullet points, and examples. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, front-loading the main purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers the conditional return values, authentication behavior, and even the legibility guarantee, making it complete.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description enriches the 'id' parameter with concrete examples (amb-2026-0042, SHA-256, UUID) and clarifies the three allowable formats, adding significant value beyond the schema.

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 states 'Retrieve a contract by ID, SHA-256 hash, or UUID' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings by detailing the three identifier formats and authentication-dependent responses.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on usage with and without authentication, and lists three lookup formats. However, it does not directly reference sibling tools or state when to use this tool over alternatives like ambr_get_contract_status.

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?