Skip to main content
Glama

erasure_audit

Audit post-erasure store lineage to verify which records remain attributable to a subject, flagging surviving derivatives, dangling lineage, and missing deletion tombstones.

Instructions

AFTER an erasure: what does the store's lineage say survived? The hard case is not the record — it is the summary built from it, which no longer looks like the subject's data. Reports records still attributable to subject, derivatives that outlived an erased origin, dangling lineage, and removals with no deletion tombstone. READ coverage BEFORE verdict: every structural check walks DECLARED derived_from edges, so a store that declares none returns verdict="unaudited" (nothing was inspected) and one whose writers claimed derivation the walk could not resolve returns verdict="partially_audited" (coverage incomplete by a known amount); neither is a pass. declared_ratio is store-wide and never vouches for one subject -- coverage["subject_reachable_records"] counts what the walk could actually follow to THIS subject, and 0 means the structural checks said nothing about it. Housekeeping deletions (capacity eviction, keep-budget) land in advisory, not residue. values adds a text scan that is an explicit heuristic and never moves the verdict. Read-only; evidence about what the store RECORDED, not proof that no copy of the material remains.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
valuesNo
subjectNo
Install Server

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does so thoroughly. It explains verdict semantics (unaudited, partially_audited), coverage interpretation, the store-wide vs subject-specific meaning of declared_ratio, advisory vs residue classification, the heuristic nature of the values scan, and the tool's read-only nature.

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 front-loaded with the core question and structured into labeled paragraphs. It is dense but each section earns its place given the complex verdict semantics. A small amount of rhetorical framing such as 'The hard case is not the record...' could be trimmed, but it helps orient the agent.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the output fields an agent needs to properly interpret results: verdict, coverage, declared_ratio, advisory, and residue. It also explains edge cases, housekeeping deletions, and the tool's limitations. An agent can invoke the tool and correctly interpret its results based on this text alone.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema. It explains that subject identifies the erased individual and that values adds a heuristic text scan that never affects the verdict. It does not fully specify the format or scope of values, but it provides essential behavioral meaning for both 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 opens with a specific purpose: auditing what the store's lineage says survived after an erasure. It lists concrete report contents such as attributable records, surviving derivatives, dangling lineage, and removals without tombstones, and distinguishes itself by emphasizing it is evidence about recorded lineage, not proof of physical erasure.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Clearly states when to use the tool: AFTER an erasure. Also provides an important when-not caveat: it is not proof that no copy remains, so it should not be treated as a proof-of-erasure tool. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/DanceNitra/inspeximus'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server