Issue a tamper-evident (hash-chained) trust attestation for an agent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claim | No | reputation-snapshot | |
| agent_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions 'tamper-evident' but does not disclose side effects, persistence, authorization needs, or reverting actions. Minimal behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, which is efficient. However, it sacrifices valuable information that could be included without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description still lacks context about prerequisites, effects on state, or relationship to sibling tools. The info is insufficient for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation for the parameters 'claim' (with default) and 'agent_id'. The default value 'reputation-snapshot' is not clarified, leaving agents uninformed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Issue' and the resource 'tamper-evident (hash-chained) trust attestation for an agent', which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like verify_attestation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as verify_attestation or record_outcome. The description only states the action, lacking contextual usage cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: issuing attestations, self-description, history retrieval, outcome recording, score querying, and verification. No overlaps.
Tools mostly follow verb_noun pattern (describe_agent, record_outcome, score_agent, verify_attestation), but 'history' is a noun-only exception. Still clear and predictable.
Six tools cover the core trust oracle functionality without bloat. Each tool serves a necessary role in the lifecycle.
Covers recording outcomes, querying scores, and managing attestations. Lacks a tool to list agents or modify outcomes, but these are plausible intentional constraints.