Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agent-passport-system-mcp

agent-passport-system-mcp

by agent-passport-system
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

Check Escalation Required

aps_check_escalation_required
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether an action on a v2 delegation requires owner confirmation before execution. Returns required status, requirement, and reason; record owner confirmation to clear the flag.

Instructions

Escalation boundary: check whether an action on a v2 delegation requires owner confirmation before execution. Returns {required, requirement?, reason?}. Use aps_record_owner_confirmation to clear the flag when required.

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": {
      "delegation": "<delegation>",
      "action_class": "<action_class>"
    },
    "name": "aps_check_escalation_required"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
delegationYesV2Delegation with optional scope.escalation_requirements
session_idNoSession id (required for per_session scope)
action_classYesAction class (e.g. 'org_creation', 'spend_above_threshold')
action_detailsNoStructured details; hashed for audit

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv4.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "action_class"
-]New value: +[
+  "delegation",
+  "action_class"
+]
  2. Addedv2.8.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new value by disclosing the return shape {required, requirement?, reason?} in the absence of an output schema, and by explaining that the flag is cleared via aps_record_owner_confirmation. It does not cover auth requirements or the per_session scoping implications explicitly.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose, return shape, follow-up action — front-loaded with the escalation framing and zero filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return contract, and it does ({required, requirement?, reason?}). It also closes the loop with the clearing tool, so an agent has everything needed to call it and act on the result.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (including session_id for per_session scope and action_details being hashed for audit) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond that baseline.

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?

States a specific verb ('check') and object ('whether an action on a v2 delegation requires owner confirmation before execution'), plus frames it as an 'escalation boundary'. It is clearly distinguishable from the many other 'check_*' siblings and from aps_record_owner_confirmation, which it explicitly names.

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?

Gives clear context for use ('before execution' of an action on a v2 delegation) and routes the agent to the follow-up tool when the flag is set. There is no explicit when-not or a named alternative check path, but the timing condition and next-step handoff are concrete.

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