Skip to main content
Glama

javaBin archive — Norwegian Java community origins

kcp_trace

Produce a decision trace for a task: every unit in the manifest annotated with the gate cascade it was evaluated through (audience, temporal, relevance, budget, context, etc.). Same inputs as kcp_plan; returns the canonical plan plus structured per-unit gate verdicts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
envNoRuntime environment for federation context selection (dev/test/staging/prod)
roleNoAgent role for audience targeting (default: agent)
taskYesThe task to plan knowledge loading for
as_ofNoISO date for temporal evaluation (default: today, UTC)
attestNoAttestation provider the agent can present, matched against the manifest's trusted_providers
budgetNoSpend ceiling for pay-per-request units
followNoFollow eligible federation refs (default false)
strictNoFail-closed: drop non-eligible units instead of listing them
methodsNoPayment methods the agent can settle, e.g. ["free","x402"] (default: free only)
currencyNoBudget currency (default USDC)
manifestYesPath, directory, or HTTPS URL of a knowledge.yaml
max_depthNoFederation hops to follow when follow=true (default 1)
max_nodesNoCap on total manifests fetched across the walk (default 64)
max_unitsNoCap on selected units (default 5)
credentialsNoCredential kinds the agent holds, e.g. ["mtls","api_key"] — opens access-gated units
context_budgetNoToken ceiling for what the plan loads into the caller's context window; over-budget units skipped with the arithmetic
allow_private_hostsNoPermit fetches to loopback/private/link-local hosts and http:// (default false — fail-closed)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the canonical plan plus structured per-unit gate verdicts, implying a read-only trace. It does not explicitly state lack of side effects, but the description is sufficiently clear about the output.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence covers purpose and output, the second clarifies relationship to sibling tool. Highly efficient.

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?

Given 17 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately describes the return value (canonical plan + verdicts). It is sufficient for understanding the tool's function, though slightly more detail on the output structure could improve completeness.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds that inputs are the same as kcp_plan, which provides context but does not deepen understanding of individual parameters beyond what the schema already offers.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states 'Produce a decision trace for a task' and elaborates with specifics about annotating units with gate cascade. It explicitly distinguishes itself from kcp_plan by noting same inputs but different output (canonical plan plus structured per-unit gate verdicts).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear guidance by stating 'Same inputs as kcp_plan', helping the agent choose between trace and plan. However, it does not explicitly exclude usage for other siblings like kcp_load or kcp_validate, leaving some ambiguity.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.