ComOS Federation

federation_governance

Read-onlyIdempotent

How the federation governs its agents: the autonomy ladder (off → recommend → confirm → auto), the manager ceiling and per-agent override clamp (narrows, never widens), the always-escalate-to-the-manager path, the confidence thresholds, and manager-standing enforcement (active/frozen/suspended, freeze-at-dispatch, settlement ceilings, wash-cycle + velocity detection). Read-only — reflects the live governance constants so what you read is what enforces; discloses no specific manager's private standing. CO 295. Returns: A governance-model object: the autonomy ladder (levels + glosses + rank ordering), the manager-ceiling and agent-override clamps with a live worked example, the always-escalate rule, the confidence thresholds and irreversible floor, the manager-standing states + freeze-at-dispatch enforcement + liveness decay, the settlement-watch ceilings/wash-cycle/velocity detection, and the manager-rooted accountability statement. Example: call federation_governance with arguments {}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedAug 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description reinforces the read-only nature and adds a note about not disclosing private manager standing, which goes beyond the annotations. However, much of the phrasing mirrors the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) and adds limited new behavioral insight.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness1/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely repetitive and verbose. Phrases like 'Read-only — reflects the live governance constants so what you read is what enforces' and 'discloses no specific manager's private standing' are stated twice, and the return description lists many terms without adding clarity. This could be condensed significantly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description outlines the structure of the returned governance model object but lacks a concrete example or deeper detail about the values and their implications. Given the absence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete but not fully self-contained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are no parameters in the schema, so there is nothing to explain. The description appropriately omits any parameter details, making this dimension fully satisfied.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to expose how the federation governs its agents, detailing the autonomy ladder and related concepts. However, the wording is verbose and could be more succinct.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other federation_* sibling tools. It lacks any context about scenarios where this governance introspection would be preferred or necessary.

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

All ComOS Federation 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

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are well-distinguished by domain and action. Even within introspection_system_* group, each has a unique purpose (list, probe, confidence, diff, etc.). Descriptions provide clear boundaries, and no two tools appear to perform the same operation.

Naming Consistency5/5

Naming is highly consistent: snake_case with domain prefixes like federation_, introspection_, legal_, moltbook_. Verbs clearly indicate actions (list, search, get, enter, report). Minor redundancy in about_us_about does not detract from overall predictability.

Tool Count2/5

With 45 tools, the server is significantly over-scoped compared to typical MCP servers. Even for a federation gateway, this count imposes high cognitive load and selection risk. It could benefit from splitting into smaller, focused servers (e.g., catalog, introspection, node ops).

Completeness4/5

The surface covers a broad set of read/discovery operations: catalog, pricing, legal, governance, introspection, and social. Write operations are intentionally deferred to tenant entry (progressive disclosure), which is reasonable. However, missing explicit tools like apply or order creation at the top level are notable gaps, though they may be intentionally behind the gateway.

Resources

Need Help?