describe_agent
Return capabilities and input contract.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
agent-notary
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description implies read-only behavior ('Return') but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or safe.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words, immediately front-loaded with purpose.
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 parameterless tool with an output schema, the description covers the return intent sufficiently; could mention that it describes the agent itself.
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?
No parameters exist; description adds value by specifying what the tool returns ('capabilities and input contract') beyond the empty schema.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'Return' and resource 'capabilities and input contract', distinguishing it from action-oriented siblings like commit or reveal.
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?
No guidance on when to use this vs siblings; it's implied by the introspection purpose but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: committing, revealing, verifying, listing, status checking, and agent description. No overlapping functionality.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (commit, describe_agent, list_commitments, reveal, verify), but 'commitment_status' uses a noun_noun pattern, slightly breaking consistency.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a notary service, covering all necessary operations without excess.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of commitments: creation, status query, listing, revealing, and verification. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.