Skip to main content
Glama

Kevros — Agentic Identity Trust

by io.github.ndl-systems

Generate Compliance Bundle

bundle
Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate a certifier-grade compliance evidence bundle. Contains hash-chained provenance, intent bindings, PQC attestations, and verification instructions. Independently verifiable without Kevros access. Cost: $0.05 per call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agent_idYesAgent whose provenance records to include in the bundle
max_recordsNoMaximum number of provenance records to include
time_range_endNoISO 8601 end time filter (inclusive)
time_range_startNoISO 8601 start time filter (inclusive)
include_intent_chainsNoInclude intent-command binding chains in the bundle
include_pqc_signaturesNoInclude post-quantum ML-DSA-87 block signatures
include_verification_instructionsNoInclude step-by-step verification procedure for auditors

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the bundle's contents (hash-chained provenance, intent bindings, PQC attestations), the key property of independent verifiability without Kevros access, and the per-call cost of $0.05. This is significant extra behavioral and operational info.

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 four short, front-loaded sentences. Each sentence adds unique information: what is generated, what it contains, a key property (independently verifiable), and cost. There is no fluff or repetition; it is concise and well-structured.

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?

Given there is an output schema and well-documented parameters, the description does not need to explain return values or parameter details. It covers the core purpose, contents, verifiability context, and cost, making the tool complete for an agent to decide when to invoke it. The complexity is moderate, but the description plus schema/annotations fully cover the needed context.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description does not add extra syntax, formatting, or parameter-specific guidance beyond what is in the schema; it only references the contents generally, which maps to the boolean includes. Hence 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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Generate a certifier-grade compliance evidence bundle') and clearly distinguishes from sibling verify/attest tools by emphasizing bundle generation and independent verifiability. It also lists key components (hash-chained provenance, intent bindings, PQC attestations), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clear context: this tool produces a compliance bundle for certifier-grade evidence, independently verifiable without Kevros access, at a known cost. It implies usage when an external verifiable bundle is needed, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it relative to siblings like verify or attest.

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 toolsInspect
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.

Resources