ckg-agentforce

by Yarmoluk

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

export_benchmark_receipt

Generate a signed receipt for CKG benchmark results that can be verified using the server's public key.

Instructions

Generate a signed BoundaryAttest receipt for the agentforce CKG benchmark result.

Produces a ckg.benchmark_result.exported claim signed with this server's Ed25519 session key. Any party holding the public key can verify the signature over the canonical JSON claim. Implements GuardrailDecisionV1 · experimental-interop-v0.1.

Result: F1 0.471 over 30 queries · ckg-benchmark v0.6.2 · 4× over RAG baseline (0.123).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.1Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Discloses key behavioral traits: generates a signed receipt using Ed25519 key, describes claim format and verifiability. No annotations provided, but the description is informative. Lacks mention of side effects or permissions.

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?

Four sentences, each adding value: purpose, cryptographic details, standards, example output. Efficient and well-structured, though the example result sentence is a bit technical.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Complete for a parameterless tool with output schema. Explains what the receipt is, how it is signed, and includes an example. Could note when the tool is relevant, but overall sufficient.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description focuses on output instead, which is appropriate. No additional parameter meaning needed.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Generate' and the resource 'signed BoundaryAttest receipt' for benchmark results. The description explains the purpose and distinguishes from sibling tools like query_ckg and verify_source.

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?

Does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives. Mentions implementation details (GuardrailDecisionV1) but no guidance on when to avoid or prefer other tools.

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

Deploy Server