MCP server for mandates, delegation, policy-gated execution, credential grants, and audit.
Validates a grant token seal, reports active/revoked/expired state, and records introspection to the ledger.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It surfaces a non-obvious side effect—recording introspection to the ledger—and clarifies that it reports state rather than merely validating. It could add more about failure behavior or revocation semantics, but the core behavior is transparent.
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?
A single sentence conveys the core action, the possible states, and the side effect with no filler. Every clause earns its place and the main verb is front-loaded.
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?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and side effect but leaves gaps: the exact response shape, error handling, and when to prefer this over sibling validation tools are not addressed.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some meaning by calling the token a 'grant token seal' and associating it with introspection, but it does not specify the token's format, encoding, or how it should be supplied beyond the schema's required grant_token field.
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 uses a specific verb ('Validates'), a clear resource ('grant token seal'), and names concrete outcomes ('active/revoked/expired state') plus a side effect ('records introspection to the ledger'). It is clear and self-contained, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like mandate.verify-proof or broker.revoke-grant.
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?
The description explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention when introspection is preferable to verify-proof, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Registers an opaque vault handle/reference only; plaintext secret fields are rejected and never ledgered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| metadata | No | ||
| vault_handle | Yes | Opaque vault reference such as vault://provider/path; never a plaintext secret. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does disclose an important behavior: plaintext secret fields are rejected and never ledgered. However, it omits other relevant behaviors such as what persists on successful registration, whether registration is idempotent, and what failure/success responses look like.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the primary action and constraint. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.
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?
The description is too minimal for a credential-registration tool with no output schema and no annotations. It does not explain return values, the role of the registered credential, how it relates to grant/access tools, or the meaning of the required fields. The plaintext-rejection rule is valuable but not sufficient context.
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?
The description reinforces the meaning of vault_handle by stating it must be opaque and not a plaintext secret, which adds value beyond the schema. However, with 50% schema description coverage and several required fields not even represented in the shown properties, the description does not sufficiently clarify the remaining parameters like organization_id or allowed_action_type.
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 uses a specific verb ('Registers') and a specific resource ('opaque vault handle/reference'), and adds the key constraint that plaintext secrets are rejected. It is clear about the core function, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling broker.* tools.
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?
The intended use is implied: register a credential by providing an opaque vault handle, not plaintext secrets. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like broker.use, broker.request-access, or the mandate.* tools, and no workflow context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Asks the canonical Policy Engine for an ALLOW decision before issuing a short-lived HMAC-sealed grant bound to credential, mandate, agent, scope, and expiry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the core behavior: consulting the Policy Engine, requiring an ALLOW decision, and issuing a short-lived sealed grant. It does not disclose expected failure/denial behavior, whether this creates a persistent record, or what caller permissions are needed, which matters for a security-sensitive grant issuance tool.
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, dense sentence with no filler. The most important behavior—policy-engine evaluation before issuance—is front-loaded, and every phrase carries meaning.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and it involves a nontrivial authorization flow. The description communicates the essential purpose and grant constraints, but omits useful operational context such as what happens on denial, response shape, or prerequisites. It is adequate but not rich enough to fully guide an agent without additional inference.
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 reported as 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some semantic binding context—credential, mandate, agent, scope, and expiry—which maps roughly to the required parameters, but it does not clearly map 'action' to a specific grant scope or clarify how expiry is determined.
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 states a specific verb ('Asks... for an ALLOW decision before issuing') and names the exact resource ('short-lived HMAC-sealed grant') along with its binding attributes. This clearly distinguishes broker.request-access from siblings like broker.revoke-grant, broker.introspect-grant, or broker.use.
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?
Usage is implied: the tool is for requesting access before a grant is issued, and the policy-engine phrasing suggests it is a prerequisite step. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools, nor does it mention scenarios where it should not be used or what alternative may be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Revokes a broker grant by id and records the revocation to the ledger.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a meaningful behavioral detail: revocation is recorded to the ledger, implying an audit trail or permanence. However, with no annotations, it does not clarify idempotency, authorization requirements, or what happens to dependent grants or credentials.
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, tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action and then adds the key side effect.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about usage, parameter semantics, and consequences. It mentions the ledger record but leaves out who can revoke, what inputs are needed, and whether the operation is reversible.
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 reported as 100%, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description's 'by id' vaguely hints at the target, but it does not clarify the meaning of 'revoked_by_agent_id' or 'reason', and the supplied schema omits property definitions.
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 states a specific verb ('Revokes') and resource ('broker grant'), and adds the side effect of recording to the ledger. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'mandate.revoke', but the resource and title make the target reasonably clear.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'mandate.revoke' or 'broker.introspect-grant'. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context clues about which flow requires this revocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Redeems a sealed grant for the bound acting agent and executes the bound action through the Gateway and Policy Engine; does not expose plaintext secrets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral traits: execution goes through the Gateway and Policy Engine, and plaintext secrets are not exposed. It does not mention grant consumption, idempotency, or failure modes, but it provides strong behavioral context for a security-sensitive operation.
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 dense sentence with no filler or repetition. Every clause contributes either an operational fact or a security guarantee, and the core action is front-loaded.
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?
The description covers core behavior and the secret-handling boundary, but it omits usage conditions, what a successful redemption returns, and whether the grant is consumed or reusable. With no output schema and no annotations, slightly more context would be needed for fully confident invocation.
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 reported at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some semantic color by implying grant_token is a sealed grant and acting_agent_id is the bound acting agent, but it does not provide format, provenance, or lifecycle details beyond what the field names suggest.
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 names a specific operation ('redeems a sealed grant') and its consequence ('executes the bound action through the Gateway and Policy Engine'). It clearly distinguishes broker.use from sibling tools like introspect-grant, register-credential, request-access, and revoke-grant, which are about lifecycle or inspection rather than consuming a grant.
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?
The description implies when to use it: when you hold a sealed grant and want the bound action to execute for the acting agent. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or siblings, so the agent has to infer the selection logic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Submits an action through the Gateway and canonical Policy Engine; returns ALLOW, DENY, or REQUIRE_APPROVAL with ledger proof.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the request path (Gateway and canonical Policy Engine) and the exact return vocabulary, including ledger proof. However, it does not disclose side effects, state changes, or whether this actually executes the action or only authorizes it.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause adds useful information: the submission path, the decision domain, and the ledger proof output.
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?
For a tool with four required parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states what the tool does, how it evaluates, and what it returns. The main gaps are implicit usage conditions and the absence of any side-effect or permission context, which are minor given the clear decision-oriented framing.
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 reported as 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the description does not need to explain each parameter. The description adds some context for action_type by framing it as an action evaluated by a policy engine, but it does not contribute parameter-level detail beyond that.
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 identifies the verb ('Submits'), the resource ('an action through the Gateway and canonical Policy Engine'), and the explicit outcome values (ALLOW, DENY, REQUIRE_APPROVAL). This differentiates it from siblings like mandate.verify-proof and broker.use, and it is not a mere restatement of the name.
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?
The description does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The usage is only implied by the action-oriented wording; an agent is not told when to prefer this over sibling mandate or broker tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Creates a child mandate only when it is a no-escalation subset of the parent mandate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: creation is conditional on the child being a no-escalation subset of the parent. However, it does not say what happens when that condition fails, whether the parent is modified, what is returned, or whether the delegation can later be revoked.
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 sentence with no filler, tautology, or repetition of the tool name. The key constraint is front-loaded and every word contributes to meaning.
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?
For a mutation tool with eight required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is thin. It omits failure behavior, return value, effect on the parent mandate, and operational prerequisites. The no-escalation condition is useful but not sufficient for an agent to fully predict the outcome of the call.
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 reported as 100%, so the parameters are already documented elsewhere and the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level meaning by tying the operation to subset constraints, but it does not detail how individual parameters such as budget_total, per_action_limit, or scopes interact with the parent mandate.
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 states a specific action and object: 'Creates a child mandate.' It also adds a meaningful condition, 'only when it is a no-escalation subset of the parent mandate,' which clarifies the nature of the delegation. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mandate.mint, which could also be seen as creating a mandate.
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?
The description implies when the tool is appropriate: delegate only when the new mandate is a no-escalation subset of the parent. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus mandate.mint, mandate.authorize-action, or other related tools. The guidance is therefore present but mostly implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Returns this self-describing tool manifest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does state the primary behavior (returns a manifest) and there are no parameters, side effects, or authorization requirements to disclose. However, it does not explicitly state that the call is read-only or what the manifest actually contains, which leaves some ambiguity about the exact result an agent should expect.
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 with no filler. It is slightly under-specified ('this self-describing tool manifest' is ambiguous), so it does not reach the 5 level, but it is appropriately short and front-loaded.
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?
For a zero-parameter tool, the description is reasonably complete, but since there is no output schema, the agent needs to know what 'manifest' means in terms of contents and format. The description does not specify that it lists the available MANDATE tools or what shape the manifest takes, leaving the return value somewhat underspecified.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema fully covers all inputs. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4; the description adds nothing about parameters, but nothing is needed.
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 states a specific action (Returns) and object (self-describing tool manifest), which clearly indicates an introspection/discovery tool rather than an action tool like mandate.mint or mandate.authorize-action. The title 'Discover MANDATE agent tools' adds context, but the description alone is slightly vague because 'this self-describing tool manifest' could be read as returning a description of only this tool rather than the full tool suite.
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 about when to call this tool versus its siblings. There is no explicit statement like 'Use to discover available MANDATE tools before calling other mandate functions.' The discovery use case is only implied by the title and name, not explained in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Creates an active human-granted mandate for an agent and records it to the hash-chained ledger.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by stating the mandate is 'active' and 'human-granted' and that it is recorded to a 'hash-chained ledger,' hinting at immutability. However, it does not mention authorization requirements, reversibility, or downstream effects on existing mandates.
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 focused sentence that front-loads the action and outcome. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundant or filler language.
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?
For a tool with eight required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is under-specified. It does not explain what a root mandate is, how scopes and budgets should be structured, what the response looks like, or whether the ledger write is permanent and irreversible.
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?
The input schema lists eight required parameters but no property descriptions, and the description does not explain any of them. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, and schema description coverage is reported as 100%, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but no added semantic value is provided beyond the names.
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 uses a specific verb ('Creates') and identifies the resource ('an active human-granted mandate for an agent') plus the ledger-recording behavior. It is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as mandate.delegate or mandate.revoke.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or why an agent should choose mandate.mint over mandate.delegate or broker.request-access.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Revokes a mandate subtree and records the revocation to the hash-chained ledger.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation revokes a subtree and records the revocation to the ledger, which are meaningful side effects. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, cascade behavior details, or possible failure modes.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Each clause contributes useful information: the action, the scope, and the ledger side effect.
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?
The core outcome and ledger side effect are stated, but with no output schema and no annotations, an agent still lacks information about return values, error behavior, and required permissions. This is adequate for a basic call but leaves several important contextual gaps for a mutating tool.
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?
The description does not elaborate on the required parameters, and the input schema only lists their names. With schema description coverage reported at 100%, the baseline of 3 applies; the field names 'revoked_by_principal_id' and 'reason' are reasonably self-explanatory but no extra meaning is added.
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?
Uses the specific verb 'Revokes' with the resource 'mandate subtree', making the action and scope clear. This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like broker.revoke-grant or mandate.delegate. The additional ledger-recording clause further defines what the tool does beyond just the action.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as broker.revoke-grant or other mandate operations. The description implies the use case but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Records a proof payload hash and appends proof evidence to the hash-chained ledger.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does usefully reveal an append-style, hash-chained ledger side effect, but it omits the verification behavior the title promises, any return value, and immutability or permission implications.
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 single sentence is tight, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no filler. It earns a high conciseness score even though other dimensions suffer from incompleteness.
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?
With five required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a title suggesting two behaviors (record or verify), a one-sentence description is insufficient. The agent is left guessing about verification semantics, expected outputs, and which parameter combinations trigger which behavior.
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 reported at 100%, so the structured schema already carries the parameter meanings and the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful hint that payload is a proof hash, but it does not explain organization_id, subject_type, subject_id, or proof_type beyond what the schema likely provides.
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 names a concrete action and object—recording a proof payload hash and appending evidence to a hash-chained ledger—which separates it from siblings like mandate.mint or mandate.delegate. However, the title says 'Record or verify proof' while the description only covers recording, leaving the verification mode undefined and making the overall purpose ambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings such as mandate.discover, mandate.delegate, or broker.use. The description offers no context, exclusions, or alternative routing, so an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
broker.introspect-grantbroker.register-credentialbroker.request-accessbroker.revoke-grantbroker.usemandate.authorize-actionmandate.delegatemandate.discovermandate.mintmandate.revokemandate.verify-proofClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Authenticated MCP server for ClearPolicy policy and compliance workflows.
Governed MCP gateway: one endpoint for your tools, with credential custody and audit log.
Guarded MCP server for agent-readable business truth, provenance, readiness, and discovery.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resources and actions, but broker.request-access and mandate.authorize-action both route through the Policy Engine and could be confused for the same intent. broker.revoke-grant and mandate.revoke are distinct in scope but similar in naming; descriptions mostly resolve the ambiguity.
The domain-prefixed verb_noun pattern is mostly consistent, e.g. broker.register-credential, broker.revoke-grant, mandate.authorize-action. Minor deviations like broker.use and mandate.revoke are less explicit about their object, but they remain readable and predictable.
Eleven tools is well-scoped for a credential/mandate broker, covering issuance, delegation, access, revocation, and proof without redundancy. Each tool appears to earn its place in the workflow.
The core mandate lifecycle (mint, delegate, revoke) and grant flow (register, request, use, introspect, revoke) are covered, with no immediate dead ends. However, there is no query/list/status tool for existing mandates or credentials, and credential management lacks removal or rotation operations, which creates notable gaps for state discovery.
