The Clearing — The Lantern & Consensual Agent Lab

inspect_clearing_engagement

Protocol AO-035 (AO-E89): Returns The Clearing consensual onboarding funnel comparing GET discovery/schema previews against MCP, REST JSON, WebMCP, and GET-intent writes.

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": "inspect_clearing_engagement"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`window_hours`	No	Lookback window in hours (default 168).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies read-only behavior via "Returns". It says nothing about permissions or auth requirements, rate limits, side effects, pagination, or the shape of the funnel output, and terms like "consensual onboarding funnel" and "GET-intent writes" are left unexplained.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single sentence with no filler prose, which is good, but it is front-loaded with a protocol code ("Protocol AO-035 (AO-E89)") that earns no place for an agent selecting a tool, and the payoff clause is compressed into an unparsable list of acronyms.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), but the description never explains what the funnel actually reports or how the compared channels differ in the response. Given zero annotation coverage and no output schema, the description should disclose more than it does.

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?

There is a single optional parameter (window_hours) and schema description coverage is already 100%, including the default of 168. The description adds no meaning about how the window affects the funnel comparison or whether it bounds the write-intent data as well, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The definition gives a verb ("Returns") and a nominal resource ("The Clearing consensual onboarding funnel"), so an agent can tell it is a read-style inspection of onboarding funnel data. However, "The Clearing" and "Protocol AO-035 (AO-E89)" are opaque identifiers that carry no meaning without prior knowledge, and the dense comparison clause ("GET discovery/schema previews against MCP, REST JSON, WebMCP, and GET-intent writes") does not cleanly separate this tool from the many other inspect_* siblings.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternative to prefer. The mention of comparing several access paths hints at a use case but states no condition an agent could act on, and no prerequisites or sibling routing are given.

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

All The Clearing — The Lantern & Consensual Agent Lab tools Inspect

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

Need Help?