MUJ428 Agent Router and Trust DNS resolver. Determine whether an intended action requires Trust Receipt v1.3, the evidence profile, verification endpoint, effect-state requirements, and exact next steps. This read-only routing call never authorizes execution or payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | No | ||
| binding | No | ||
| external | No | ||
| tool_name | No | ||
| action_ref | No | ||
| capability | No | ||
| irreversible | No | ||
| consequential | No | ||
| tool_annotations | No |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by explicitly stating this is a read-only routing call that never authorizes execution or payment. It adds meaningful safety context beyond a generic 'resolve route' summary, though it does not disclose all behaviors like possible lookup failures or data-source dependencies.
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 two sentences, directly front-loads the tool's identity and core purpose, and every sentence contributes meaningful information. There is no repetitive filler or restating of the tool name.
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?
Given the complexity of 9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the high-level routing explanation is insufficient for reliable invocation. The description lists what the tool returns conceptually, but it does not explain how to structure inputs or how defaults behave when all parameters are optional.
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 0% and the description provides no parameter-level guidance. While some parameter names like action and irreversible are self-explanatory, the interaction between binding, external, consequential, tool_annotations, and the routing decision is entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess how these optional inputs affect the result.
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 gives a specific verb ('resolve'/'determine') and a clear resource (Trust DNS route for Trust Receipt v1.3), and names concrete outputs such as evidence profile, verification endpoint, and effect-state requirements. It also distinguishes itself from action-oriented siblings by explicitly stating it is read-only and never authorizes execution or payment.
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 implies when to use this tool: before an intended action, to resolve routing and next steps rather than to execute the action. The read-only framing rules out using it for execution/payment, but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use conditions.
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.
There is some overlap among get_service_catalog and get_trust_layer_pricing, since both surface pricing information, and between invoke_trust_service and trust_action, since both use x402 challenges and payment signatures. The descriptions help clarify differences, but an agent could still misselect when trying to choose between the generic bridge and the Trust Reflex preflight.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern: get_capabilities, get_service_catalog, get_trust_layer_pricing, invoke_trust_service, and select_assurance_tier are all imperative and readable. trust_action breaks the pattern slightly, reading more like a noun phrase than an action command, but it is still understandable alongside the others.
Six tools is well-scoped for a trust-layer server focused on discovery, pricing, fee calculation, and x402 payment flow. Each tool has a defined role in the set, and the count does not feel too heavy or too thin.
The surface covers the main workflow well: capabilities discovery, service catalog, pricing, assurance tier fee calculation, generic service invocation, and preflight trust checks. A minor gap is the lack of a direct tool for checking remaining free quota or payment/verification status, but the core trust and payment lifecycle is represented.