Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Security Recipes

by io.github.stevologic
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Recipes Agentic Approval Receipt Pack

recipes_agentic_approval_receipt_pack

Return scope-bound approval receipt profiles, workflow requirements, and evidence.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "recipes_agentic_approval_receipt_pack"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
decisionNo
risk_tierNo
workflow_idNo
action_classNo
approval_profile_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about read-only vs. mutating behavior, permissions, side effects, or rate limits. 'Return' weakly implies a read, but no guarantees are stated.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness contributes to gaps elsewhere rather than to conciseness itself.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, but a 5-parameter, 0%-covered, annotation-free tool needs far more: parameter meaning, usage context, and behavioral guarantees are all absent.

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

Parameters1/5

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

All 5 parameters have 0% schema description coverage and the description does not mention any of them. Terms like 'scope-bound' hint at filtering but never map to decision, risk_tier, workflow_id, action_class, or approval_profile_id.

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 uses a clear verb ('Return') and names specific artifacts (approval receipt profiles, workflow requirements, evidence). It does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling '..._pack' tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or which sibling tools (e.g., run_receipt_pack, assurance_pack) are alternatives. Only a bare output statement is given.

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

All Security Recipes toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources