Skip to main content
Glama

Verify a mandate and decide on an act

verify_mandate
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check if an act is permitted under a mandate by verifying signature, validity, scope, constraints, and approval rules, returning allow, deny, or require_approval with reason codes.

Instructions

Check a mandate and decide whether an act is permitted under it. Call this before every act, on your own mandate or on one a counterparty presented.

It checks the document against the published schema and the rules the schema cannot express, verifies the issuer signature, checks the validity interval, and, when proposed_action is given, checks the act against the mandate's actions, its four scope axes, its constraints in stable order, and its approval rules.

Returns one decision, allow, deny, or require_approval, with the registered reason codes behind it, the per-constraint outcomes, and action_hash, the hash of the exact act evaluated.

On require_approval: pass that action_hash to issue_approval, then call this tool again with the returned approval_id and the identical proposed_action. The decision becomes allow. A deny is never approvable.

This server makes no network call. Resolve the mandate's status_endpoint yourself and pass the result as status. An absent result, one older than 60 seconds, or any status other than active denies with A202-MANDATE-STATUS-UNRESOLVED or A202-MANDATE-INACTIVE: unavailability is not permission.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
atNoRFC 3339 instant to check against. Defaults to now.
statusNoWhat you retrieved from the mandate's status endpoint, and when. Omit it and the decision is deny.
mandateNoThe mandate document, when it came from a counterparty.
approvalNoAn approval object presented directly, instead of approval_id.
mandate_idNoA mandate this server holds, as returned by issue_mandate.
approval_idNoAn approval this server holds, from issue_approval, that releases a require_approval hold.
proposed_actionNoThe act to evaluate against the mandate. Constraint paths address this document from $, so a spending limit reads $.proposed_terms.core.total.amount.
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: no network call is made, status handling rules (older than 60 seconds counts as no result), deny is never approvable, and the exact checks performed. This goes well beyond the annotations with no contradiction.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is long but every sentence earns its place, covering purpose, checks, return values, approval flow, and status constraints in a logical structure. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns (decision, reason codes, per-constraint outcomes, action_hash), and the approval workflow. It even notes the 'unavailability is not permission' edge case, making it complete for an agent.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful context: it explains the relationship between mandate and mandate_id, defines the required status object semantics, clarifies that proposed_action paths address from $, and describes the action_hash/approval_id flow. This significantly enriches the bare schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Check a mandate and decide whether an act is permitted under it.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on mandate verification and decision, and explicitly says 'Call this before every act' and covers both own and counterparty mandates.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this before every act.' Also explains the require_approval flow with issue_approval and re-invocation, and describes how to handle status endpoints. It clearly delineates the alternative paths (mandate vs mandate_id) without needing to mention every sibling.

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

Install Server

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/a202-protocol/a202'

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