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

agent-passport-system-mcp

by agent-passport-system
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

Create Provisional Statement

aps_create_provisional
Read-onlyIdempotent

Emit a provisional, non-binding statement for agent-to-agent negotiation; auto-withdraws at dead-man expiry unless a PromotionEvent satisfies a PromotionPolicy.

Instructions

Commitment boundary: emit a provisional statement for agent-to-agent negotiation. Default is non-binding until a PromotionEvent satisfies a PromotionPolicy. Dead-man expiry auto-withdraws.

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": {
      "author": "<author>",
      "author_principal": "<author_principal>",
      "content": "<content>",
      "author_private_key": "<author_private_key>"
    },
    "name": "aps_create_provisional"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
authorYesAgentDID/public key of the emitting agent
contentYesStatement content (offer, position, claim)
gateway_idNoGateway id for timestamping (default: 'mcp')
dead_man_msNoDead-man expiry relative to now (ms). If elapsed without promotion/withdrawal, statement auto-withdraws.
author_principalYesPrincipalDID behind the author
author_private_keyYesHex private key of author for signing

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 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
  2. Addedv2.8.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description earns credit for adding lifecycle semantics the annotations cannot express: the statement is non-binding by default until a PromotionEvent satisfies a PromotionPolicy, and dead-man expiry auto-withdraws it. It stops short of stating that the call requires the author's private key to sign, or what happens on signing failure.

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 with the framing ('Commitment boundary') front-loaded and the binding/expiry rules following. No filler, though the leading label is slightly opaque and the sentence boundaries could be sharper.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a six-parameter, four-required signing tool with no output schema, the description covers lifecycle but not the result: it never says what the caller receives (statement id, signed artifact, receipt) or that a private key is mandatory. Annotations and the rich schema carry most of the load, so this is adequate but has a real gap around outcomes.

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% across all six parameters, so the schema already documents author, content, gateway_id, dead_man_ms, author_principal and author_private_key. The description's dead-man expiry sentence largely restates the schema's own wording for dead_man_ms and adds no format or constraint detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('emit a provisional statement') and scopes it to 'agent-to-agent negotiation'. It implicitly separates the provisional stage from the promotion stage (PromotionEvent/PromotionPolicy), which is the key distinction from siblings like aps_promote_statement and aps_withdraw_provisional, though it never names those siblings directly.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this for negotiation-time statements that are non-binding until promoted. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no stated prerequisites (e.g. an existing author principal/identity), and no routing to the alternative tools an agent should reach for when the statement must be made binding or retracted.

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