Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bsp-mcp

bsp-mcp

Official
by Biological-Sovereignty-Protocol
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

bsp_verify_consent

Validate a ConsentToken to confirm it is valid and contains the required intent before accessing health data.

Instructions

Verify if a ConsentToken is valid and has the required intent

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "token_id": "<token_id>",
      "intent": "<intent>"
    },
    "name": "bsp_verify_consent"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
intentYesIntent to check (e.g. "READ_RECORDS", "SUBMIT_RECORD").
token_idYesConsentToken ID to verify.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool verifies validity and intent, but does not disclose whether this is a read-only check, what happens for invalid tokens, or whether any side effects occur. This is a meaningful gap for a tool without annotation safety hints.

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 a single focused sentence that front-loads the operation and its key condition. There is no redundant or filler content.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple with two well-documented parameters, but there is no output schema and no explanation of what result indicates success or failure. The description also fails to distinguish this from bsp_check_consent, leaving an important contextual gap.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description's phrase 'has the required intent' loosely connects to the intent parameter but adds no new semantic detail beyond 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 ('Verify') and resource ('ConsentToken') and states the exact condition being checked: validity and required intent. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool bsp_check_consent, which likely has overlapping purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like bsp_check_consent, nor are prerequisites or upstream/downstream steps mentioned. The description implies a verification use case but leaves the selection criteria to the agent.

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