Kevros — Agentic Identity Trust

Bind Intent to Command

bind

Declare an intent and cryptographically bind it to a command. Proves that the command was issued in service of the declared intent. Use verify-outcome after execution to close the loop. Cost: $0.02 per call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`agent_id`	Yes	Unique identifier of the agent declaring intent
`goal_state`	No	Expected end state for outcome verification
`intent_type`	Yes	Category of intent (e.g. 'navigation', 'transaction', 'deployment')
`intent_source`	No	Origin of intent: AI_PLANNER, HUMAN_OPERATOR, or SYSTEM	AI_PLANNER
`command_payload`	Yes	The command that will be executed to fulfill this intent
`parent_intent_id`	No	ID of parent intent for hierarchical intent chains
`intent_description`	Yes	Human-readable description of what the agent intends to do

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc., which are uninformative. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Proves that the command was issued in service of the declared intent' and states a cost of '$0.02 per call.' These go beyond the basic hints and give the agent a sense of side effects and billing.

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 three concise sentences: core function, proof guarantee, and workflow/cost. Every sentence earns its place, is front-loaded with the primary action, and has no fluff or repetition.

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 7-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential lifecycle (bind then verify-outcome), explains the cryptographic purpose, and notes cost. It does not discuss parameter behavior or output format, but those are handled by the schema, making it adequately complete for an agent.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no specific parameter-level guidance beyond the general intent/command concept. Baseline 3 applies since the description does not need to repeat schema details.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Declare an intent and cryptographically bind it to a command.' It uses a specific verb ('bind') and resource ('intent to command'), and distinguishes itself from sibling verification tools by emphasizing the cryptographic proof and by pointing to verify-outcome as the follow-up step.

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 gives an explicit usage hint: 'Use verify-outcome after execution to close the loop.' This indicates a sequential workflow. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like attest, verify, or bundle, so it misses the full 'when/when-not' guidance.

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

All Kevros — Agentic Identity Trust 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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action or resource: attest creates provenance records, bind declares intent, bundle aggregates evidence, verify checks policy pre-execution, verify-outcome validates results, and verify-token authenticates release tokens. Even the verify-* family is clearly differentiated by timing and purpose.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use lowercase imperative verbs, with hyphenated modifiers for multi-word names (check-peer, verify-outcome, verify-token). The pattern is mostly consistent, though some tools are bare verbs (attest, bind, health) while others include a noun, creating a minor deviation from strict verb_noun style.

Tool Count5/5

Nine tools is well within the ideal range for this domain. Each tool serves a clear purpose in the agentic identity trust lifecycle, from evidence creation to verification and peer assessment, without redundancy or excessive sprawl.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core workflow: intent binding, policy verification, provenance attestation, outcome verification, token verification, and compliance bundling. Minor gaps exist such as missing explicit revocation or role management, but agents can complete the primary governance lifecycle.

Bind Intent to Command

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources