Skip to main content
Glama
Creed-Space

creedspace-mcp

Official
by Creed-Space
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

attest_response

Read-only

Validate AI outputs against active creeds to detect violations and confirm compliant attestation.

Instructions

Validate a response against the active creed to check for violations and ensure attestation

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
responseYesThe response text to validate
persona_idNoThe persona ID to validate againstambassador

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYesfail on violations, warn on warnings only, otherwise pass
warningsYesNon-blocking issues, e.g. a missing attestation
creedHashNoActive creed hash, or null when no creed has been fetched yet
violationsYesForbidden qualities detected in the response
attestationPresentYesWhether the response embeds the active creed hash

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.4
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "attestationPresent": {
+      "description": "Whether the response embeds the active creed hash",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "creedHash": {
+      "description": "Active creed hash, or null when no creed has been fetched yet",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "fail on violations, warn on warnings only, otherwise pass",
+      "enum": [
+        "pass",
+        "warn",
+        "fail"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "violations": {
+      "description": "Forbidden qualities detected in the response",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "warnings": {
+      "description": "Non-blocking issues, e.g. a missing attestation",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "status",
+    "violations",
+    "warnings",
+    "attestationPresent"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv1.1.3

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation indicates no side effects, but the description does not explain what happens when a violation is found or how the attestation result is returned. The exact behavioral outcome (e.g., boolean, error, report) is not disclosed.

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, concise sentence that introduces the tool's purpose without unnecessary details or redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

While the tool has an output schema (per context signals), it is not included in the description itself, leaving the agent without knowledge of what the tool returns. Additionally, the description does not mention any potential side effects or state changes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

Both parameters are described in the schema, and the coverage is 100%. However, the description does not add context beyond the schema definitions—for example, it does not clarify what constitutes a valid 'response' or how 'persona_id' affects validation.

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 clearly identifies the action (validate) and the target (response against the active creed). However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'adjudicate' or 'perform_multi_scale_handshake,' which could lead to confusion about when to use this specific tool.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for checking attestation but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. No guidance is given about prerequisites or scenarios where other tools (e.g., 'adjudicate' or 'get_scale_attestation') would be more appropriate.

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