Skip to main content
Glama

Kevros — Agentic Identity Trust

by io.github.ndl-systems

Verify Action

verify
Idempotent

Verify an action against policy bounds before executing it. Returns ALLOW (proceed), CONSTRAIN (proceed with modified values; emitted on the wire as the legacy value CLAMP - both refer to the same verdict, CONSTRAIN is the public name), or DENY (stop). Every verification is recorded in a hash-chained provenance ledger. Cost: $0.01 per call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agent_idYesUnique identifier of the agent requesting verification
action_typeYesCategory of action to verify (e.g. 'deploy', 'trade', 'send_email')
template_idNoNamed policy template (e.g. 'robotics-arm', 'financial-transaction'). Merged with policy_context.
action_payloadYesAction parameters to verify against policy bounds
policy_contextNoOptional policy overrides such as max_values or forbidden_keys
idempotency_keyNoOptional key for idempotent retries - same key returns cached result

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral details beyond annotations: it enumerates the three possible verdicts (ALLOW, CONSTRAIN, DENY), explains the legacy CLAMP alias, mentions the hash-chained provenance ledger recording each call, and states the cost per call. This complements the annotation hints effectively.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct, relevant information: purpose, return values, and operational details (ledger + cost). No redundancy or filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: when to use it, what it returns, side effects, and cost. It does not delve into error conditions or rate limits, but this is not critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the description correctly relies on the schema for parameter details. While the tool description references 'policy bounds' which maps to policy_context/action_payload, it does not add specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verifies an action against policy bounds before execution, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like verify-outcome and verify-token by focusing on pre-execution policy verification.

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 phrase 'before executing it' provides clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand its primary use case.

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