Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Raziel

by io.github.tide-foundation
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

tide_scenario_roles

Read-only

Read a scenario role-policy matrix from reference-apps//role-policy-matrix.md

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesScenario name. Available: attestation, attested-provenance-registry, encrypted-communication, git-pr-signing-service, iga-admin-governance, organisation-password-manager, policy-governed-signing, relationship-attestation

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"Scenario name. Available: attested-provenance-registry, encrypted-communication, git-pr-signing-service, iga-admin-governance, organisation-password-manager, policy-governed-signing"New value: +"Scenario name. Available: attestation, attested-provenance-registry, encrypted-communication, git-pr-signing-service, iga-admin-governance, organisation-password-manager, policy-governed-signing, relationship-attestation"
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"Scenario name. Available: encrypted-communication, git-pr-signing-service, iga-admin-governance, organisation-password-manager, policy-governed-signing"New value: +"Scenario name. Available: attested-provenance-registry, encrypted-communication, git-pr-signing-service, iga-admin-governance, organisation-password-manager, policy-governed-signing"
  4. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive read operation. The description adds useful context that the read targets reference-apps/<scenario>/role-policy-matrix.md, but it does not disclose error behavior for unknown scenarios or the exact return format beyond the implied Markdown file.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The verb, resource, and path pattern all appear immediately.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one documented parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly. It could be slightly more complete by stating that the result is the Markdown content of the matrix or by noting what happens for an invalid scenario name.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%: the only parameter, name, is documented with the full list of valid scenario values. The description adds path semantics showing how the scenario name maps to a directory, but it does not expand on format or constraints beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('scenario role-policy matrix'), and it adds the exact source path pattern. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling scenario-reading tools such as tide_scenario_manifest.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The usage is implied by the resource being read: an agent should use this when it needs a scenario's role-policy matrix. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative for related scenario metadata.

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

All Raziel 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