Run saved test cases against a policy to confirm it blocks what it should block and allows what it should allow. Run this after make_rules and before using the policy in production. Requires api_key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | Your ICME API key | |
| policy_id | Yes | Policy ID to test |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / api_key / descriptionAdded value: +"Your ICME API key"Input schema / properties / policy_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Policy ID to test"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the auth requirement ('Requires api_key') and the intended behavior (confirming block/allow logic). However, it does not detail side effects, whether the operation is read-only, or what happens on failure, leaving some ambiguity for a testing tool.
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?
Three concise sentences: first defines purpose, second gives workflow placement, third states the auth requirement. Every sentence carries useful information with no redundancy, and the most critical information is front-loaded.
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?
For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage timing, and auth. It does not mention return values or error conditions, but the 'confirm it blocks/allows' wording implies the test results. This is reasonably complete given the tool's simplicity, though additional detail on response format would make it 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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (policy_id and api_key) with 100% coverage. The description only repeats the api_key requirement without adding additional meaning, such as format specifics or how to obtain the key, so it does not exceed the baseline for schema-covered parameters.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Run saved test cases against a policy to confirm it blocks what it should block and allows what it should allow.' This specifies the verb, resource, and expected outcome, distinguishing it from siblings like make_rules (rule creation) and check_action (single action checking).
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 provides explicit sequencing: 'Run this after make_rules and before using the policy in production.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not name alternative tools or exclusion criteria. The prerequisite 'Requires api_key' further guides usage.
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.
Each tool has a distinct role, but the presence of payment-method variants (check_action vs check_action_paid, create_account vs create_account_card, top_up vs top_up_card) introduces minor overlap that is clearly explained. The check tools are differentiated by output detail and purpose, though quick_check and check_action could be confused at a glance.
Names predominantly follow a verb_noun pattern (check_action, create_account, run_tests), with consistent _paid and _card suffixes for payment variants. Minor deviations like quick_check (adjective_noun) and top_up (phrasal verb) are understandable but break the pattern slightly.
With 14 tools, the set covers the full lifecycle of policy creation, testing, action checking, payment, and proof verification without bloat. Each tool serves a clear purpose within the service's scope.
The primary workflow (create policy, test policy, check actions, verify proofs) is well covered, including multiple payment options. Missing utilities like listing or deleting policies and credit balance checks are minor gaps that don't block the core use case.