Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Sous

Sous

by Zawaer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Optional: Read the mandate

get_mandate
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve your agent’s purchasing mandate with spend limits, allergen and claim rules, human-approval requirements, and signature.

Instructions

The mandate you act under (spend limits, allergen and claim rules, what needs a human), with its signature. Only your own mandate (send your Authorization: Bearer header or agent_token) or a public demo mandate. Returns {mandate (schema /schemas/mandate.json), jws (sous-mandate+jws), issuer, credential?, revocation?}.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "mandate_id": "<mandate_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_mandate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mandate_idYes
agent_tokenNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jwsYes
issuerYes
mandateYes
credentialNovc+jwt credential when the buyer issued one
rememberedNoRemembered decisions (approve and remember, sous/remembered.py): findings a human approved earlier that now notify instead of ask: {id, rule, product_id, original_product_id?, by, created_at, expires_at, max_quantity?, max_line_total_eur?, jws (sous-remembered+jws)}. Tell the buyer when one was used.
revocationNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the description's job is to add context — and it does: it discloses the authentication path (Authorization: Bearer header or agent_token), the authorization scoping (own mandate or public demo), and the credential/revocation fields that may or may not be present.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loading what the mandate contains before auth rules and return shape. The parenthetical lists and abbreviated return signature are dense but each clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so restating return fields is optional but helpful here since it flags optional credential/revocation members. The main gap is error behavior for unauthorized or unknown mandate ids, and the absence of any routing to listing or action-checking siblings.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains agent_token's purpose well (bearer credential alternative to the header), but mandate_id is only implied by context — nothing states its format, where to obtain it, or that an unowned/nonexistent id will fail.

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?

Names a concrete resource — the mandate with its spend limits, allergen/claim rules, signature — so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It stops short of an explicit verb and never contrasts itself with the sibling list tool my_mandates, so the distinction must be inferred from the required mandate_id.

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 access constraint ('only your own mandate ... or a public demo mandate') implies this is a single-record read, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no pointer to my_mandates for listing or to can_i_order for actually checking an action against the mandate.

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