creedspace-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

perform_multi_scale_handshake

Coordinate multi-party value exchange across micro, meso, and macro scales while enforcing anti-collusion rules and hierarchical budgets.

Instructions

Perform N-party value handshake across micro/meso/macro scales with anti-collusion and hierarchical budgets

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`parties`	Yes	Array of party contexts for handshake
`invariants`	No	List of invariant rules that must be enforced

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`conflicts`	No	Conflicts detected between parties
`rationale`	No	Explanation of the handshake outcome
`party_weights`	No	Weight assigned to each party in the synthesis
`scale_attestations`	No	Attestation record per alignment scale
`precedence_decisions`	No	Precedence decisions taken to resolve competing party values
`synthesized_constitution`	No	Merged UVC components agreed across parties; null when no synthesis was reached

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.4Sep 7, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Handshake result returned by the Creed Space safety stack",
+  "properties": {
+    "conflicts": {
+      "description": "Conflicts detected between parties",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "party_weights": {
+      "description": "Weight assigned to each party in the synthesis",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "precedence_decisions": {
+      "description": "Precedence decisions taken to resolve competing party values",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "rationale": {
+      "description": "Explanation of the handshake outcome",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "scale_attestations": {
+      "description": "Attestation record per alignment scale",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "synthesized_constitution": {
+      "description": "Merged UVC components agreed across parties; null when no synthesis was reached",
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv1.1.3Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds behavioral context like 'anti-collusion and hierarchical budgets', but does not explain what side effects occur, what happens on failure, or whether any state is mutated. This is acceptable given the annotations cover the basics, but more detail would improve transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action. It is efficient and well-structured. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, which is a slight deduction from a perfect score.

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?

For a tool with nested party objects and invariants, the description is severely underspecified. It does not explain what a 'handshake' entails, how invariants are enforced, what constitutes success, or what the output looks like (though an output schema exists). Given the complexity of multi-party, multi-scale operation, the description is inadequate for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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%, meaning all parameters (parties, invariants) have descriptions in the schema. The description itself does not add detailed parameter semantics, but it does imply the handshake operates on multiple parties and scales, which aligns with the schema. Since the schema already carries the burden, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Perform N-party value handshake') with clear scope ('across micro/meso/macro scales') and adds distinctive elements ('anti-collusion and hierarchical budgets'). It is not a tautology and distinguishes from siblings like 'adjudicate' which is a different operation. However, the term 'handshake' is not elaborated, leaving some ambiguity about the exact operation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings such as 'adjudicate' or 'attest_response' might be related, but the description does not mention them or any conditions that would select this tool over others. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server