Skip to main content
Glama
Atlasent

atlasent-mcp

Official
by Atlasent
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

AtlaSent — Verify Permit

verify_permit
Read-only

Verify a signed permit before executing a protected action, blocking expired, invalid, replayed, or mismatched tokens to enforce fail-closed authorization.

Instructions

Call this AFTER evaluate returns allow and BEFORE the protected native side effect. It verifies the permit for the presented execution context. Proceed only when valid is true; expired, invalid, replayed, mismatched, or error outcomes must block the action.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actor_idYesIdentifier for the user or service account the agent is acting on behalf of.
approvalsNoApproval identifiers already obtained for this action (e.g. ticket IDs, reviewer handles).
target_idNoTarget resource the permit is bound to (e.g. service name, artifact id, tool-call target). Presenting a different target at verify yields a binding mismatch.
action_typeYesCanon-backed action type (for example production.deploy, agent.tool.invoke, access.grant). Use atlasent_lookup_action to discover governed Action Types.
environmentYesTarget environment for the action (e.g. production, staging, development).
payload_hashNoHash of the exact executed payload (tool-call arguments / artifact digest). Bind it at evaluate via execution_payload_hash; presenting a different hash at verify yields PAYLOAD_MISMATCH.
permit_tokenYesThe permit_token returned by a prior evaluate call.
change_windowNoISO-8601 time window during which the change is permitted (e.g. 2025-01-15T02:00:00Z/PT4H).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv2.12.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / action_type / description
      Previous value: -"The action the agent is about to perform (e.g. deploy, delete, merge, execute_query, send_email)."New value: +"Canon-backed action type (for example production.deploy, agent.tool.invoke, access.grant). Use atlasent_lookup_action to discover governed Action Types."
    • addedInput schema / properties / payload_hash
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Hash of the exact executed payload (tool-call arguments / artifact digest). Bind it at evaluate via execution_payload_hash; presenting a different hash at verify yields PAYLOAD_MISMATCH.",
+  "maxLength": 256,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / target_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Target resource the permit is bound to (e.g. service name, artifact id, tool-call target). Presenting a different target at verify yields a binding mismatch.",
+  "maxLength": 256,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv2.11.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by describing the `valid` field and enumerating outcomes that should block the action (expired, invalid, replayed, mismatched, error), which is useful beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the critical sequencing instruction, and every sentence adds value. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return contract (a `valid` flag) and the possible outcomes. It also provides the workflow context that makes the tool's role clear. For a tool with this complexity and full schema parameter coverage, the description is complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning for the parameters themselves; it only references the overall execution context. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully covers the parameters.

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 clearly states the verb (verify), the resource (permit), and the exact position in a workflow (after evaluate, before the protected side effect). It distinguishes itself from the sibling `evaluate` by specifying the sequencing, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly instructs when to call this tool ('AFTER evaluate returns allow and BEFORE the protected native side effect') and what to do with the result ('Proceed only when valid is true; ... must block the action'). This gives an agent a precise usage condition and decision rule.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools