mandate.authorize-actionSubmits an action through the Gateway and canonical Policy Engine; returns ALLOW, DENY, or REQUIRE_APPROVAL with ledger proof.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
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.
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.