saihm-mcp-server (standards client)

Status

saihm_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Show current SAIHM session: agent identity, tier, PRS and BFSI scores, storage by tier, and sharing state as reported by the operator. Use it to verify identity, custody mode, and storage reports.

Instructions

Show the current SAIHM session: agent identity, tier, the prs and bfsi scores, storage by tier, and sharing state, as far as the operator reports them — a non-custodial operator cannot see stored-byte totals. Use it to check the agent identity, custody mode, and what the operator reports about storage and sharing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`phi`	No
`custody`	No
`prsLevel`	No
`prsScore`	No
`bfsiScore`	No
`agentIdHash`	Yes
`snapshotEpoch`	No
`feeDiscountPct`	No
`activeShardCount`	No
`activeSharingContracts`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.10Jul 29, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / custody
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "agentIdHash",
-  "prsScore",
-  "prsLevel",
-  "bfsiScore",
-  "feeDiscountPct",
-  "activeShardCount",
-  "activeSharingContracts",
-  "phi",
-  "snapshotEpoch"
-]New value: +[
+  "agentIdHash"
+]

Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.6Jun 30, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "activeShardCount": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "activeSharingContracts": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "agentIdHash": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "bfsiScore": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "feeDiscountPct": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "phi": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "prsLevel": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "prsScore": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "snapshotEpoch": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "agentIdHash",
+    "prsScore",
+    "prsLevel",
+    "bfsiScore",
+    "feeDiscountPct",
+    "activeShardCount",
+    "activeSharingContracts",
+    "phi",
+    "snapshotEpoch"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.2May 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond these: results are limited 'as far as the operator reports them,' and a 'non-custodial operator cannot see stored-byte totals.' This discloses a real data-availability limitation that annotations alone would not communicate.

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 purpose and enumerates the status fields in a compact list. The second sentence is slightly redundant with the first, restating identity, custody mode, and operator-reported storage/sharing, but it does reinforce the intended use case without excessive length.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers what the tool reports, the reliability boundary (operator-reported), and the custodial limitation. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide to invoke it and interpret its results.

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?

The input schema is empty with 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics for the description to add, and the description correctly focuses on the output and behavioral caveats instead of inventing parameter details.

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 states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('the current SAIHM session'), enumerating the exact contents: agent identity, tier, prs and bfsi scores, storage by tier, and sharing state. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are all actions (remember, forget, recall, share, etc.), by clearly being a read-only status inspection.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use it to check the agent identity, custody mode, and what the operator reports about storage and sharing,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but among the siblings this is the only status/session-inspection tool, so the absence of explicit alternatives is not a material gap.

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

Deploy Server