Rubric Protocol MCP Server

bundle_query

Query attestation bundles by leaf type, agent, or time range to retrieve and verify compliance records; Standard+ tier is required.

Instructions

Query attestation bundles by leaf type, agent, or time range. Requires Standard+ tier.

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": "bundle_query"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`agentId`	No
`leafType`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.2.4Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the Standard+ tier requirement, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, whether pagination applies via limit, what the response looks like, or any rate limits or side effects.

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?

The description is two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted wording. The primary purpose is stated first, and the tier requirement follows as a necessary constraint.

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?

Given three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits the limit parameter, return behavior, and access details beyond tier, and its mention of a time-range filter conflicts with the provided schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the three parameters. It adds meaning for leafType and agentId, but never mentions limit, and it claims filtering by 'time range' even though no time-range parameter exists in the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Query attestation bundles,' and names the filtering dimensions (leaf type, agent, time range). This clearly distinguishes it from attest, verify, and get_proof, but it does not explicitly compare itself to those 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?

The only usage guidance is the prerequisite 'Requires Standard+ tier.' There is no statement of when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_proof or attested_inference, and no exclusions or recommended contexts are given.

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

Deploy Server