Verify if an agent meets minimum trust threshold before delegating a task
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | The agent ID to verify | |
| platform | No | Platform context for trust check | |
| min_trust | No | Minimum trust score required (0-5) |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the purpose ('verify if...') and omits any details about side effects, return format, permissions, or whether this is a read-only operation. This is a significant gap for a tool that may trigger trust evaluation logic.
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 redundant wording. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and usage context without wasting tokens.
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 is relatively simple, and the schema fully documents its parameters. However, with no output schema and no annotation coverage, the description leaves unanswered questions about return values (e.g., boolean vs. detailed report) and any side effects. It is adequate but not fully complete.
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 has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (agent_id, platform, min_trust), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meriting the baseline score.
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 'Verify' with a clear resource ('if an agent meets minimum trust threshold') and context ('before delegating a task'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_trust_score, which likely retrieves a raw score rather than performing a threshold check.
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 phrase 'before delegating a task' provides a clear situational context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context alone is sufficient for basic usage guidance.
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. The only potential confusion is between approve_job and complete_deal, both releasing payments, but descriptions clearly differentiate job vs deal contexts. Overall, tools are well-separated.
Almost all tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_, get_, list_, etc.). The only outlier is network_stats, which lacks a verb, but this is a minor deviation from an otherwise uniform convention.
With 29 tools, the set exceeds the 25-tool threshold for a well-scoped server. While the platform covers many domains (jobs, payments, trust, identity, campaigns, tickets), the high count feels heavy and could benefit from consolidation or clearer separation into sub-modules.
Core job and stake lifecycles are fully covered, but tickets and campaigns only support create/list/get with no update, delete, or close operations. Payment also lacks a direct send/unified transfer option. These gaps are notable but workarounds exist via deals and top-up links.