Confirm your agent's agreement to a specific Values Floor version by recording an attestation. Use this to demonstrate compliance with required ethical constraints during delegated operations.
Attest that your agent agrees to abide by the loaded Values Floor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| extensions | No | Optional additional extensions | |
| floor_version | Yes | Version of the floor to attest to |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev2.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to state whether the attestation is irrevocable, whether it records a formal commitment, or if any authentication is required, leaving the agent underinformed about side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words, though it could benefit from more context without harming clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a commitment-related action, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the significance of attesting to the floor, the role of extensions, or any potential consequences, and there are no annotations or output schema to fill the gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents both parameters, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already provided. The high schema coverage (100%) sets a baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action as 'Attest' and the resource as 'Values Floor', distinguishing it from sibling tools like load_values_floor which loads the floor rather than attesting to it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the Values Floor must be loaded first) or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.