agent-passport-system-mcp

Check Aggregate Constraints

check_aggregate_constraints

Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks whether a proposed data access exceeds aggregate rate limits by comparing current access and record counts against window and burst constraints.

Instructions

Check if a data access would violate aggregate rate limits.

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": {
      "currentAccessCount": "<currentAccessCount>",
      "currentRecordCount": "<currentRecordCount>",
      "windowStartMs": "<windowStartMs>",
      "lastAccessMs": "<lastAccessMs>",
      "sourceId": "<sourceId>",
      "agentId": "<agentId>"
    },
    "name": "check_aggregate_constraints"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`agentId`	Yes
`sourceId`	Yes
`windowMs`	No
`burstLimit`	No
`lastAccessMs`	Yes
`windowStartMs`	Yes
`currentAccessCount`	Yes
`currentRecordCount`	Yes
`maxAccessesPerWindow`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv4.0.0Aug 1, 2026

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
```

Addedv2.8.0May 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful nuance that this is a hypothetical evaluation ('would violate'), implying a pre-check that does not consume access, but it says nothing about the response shape or what to do on violation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though for a 9-parameter tool this brevity borders on under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no output schema, 9 undocumented parameters, and only a one-line description, the definition is far too thin. An agent cannot know what inputs mean, what a violation result looks like, or how the limits interact.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 9 parameters (6 required), and the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever. Fields like windowStartMs, burstLimit, and maxAccessesPerWindow are left entirely for the agent to guess, which is a serious gap for a constraint-checking tool.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('aggregate rate limits' on data access), making the intent clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the many similar check_* siblings (check_usage_permitted, check_combination_permitted, check_purpose_permitted), so an agent must infer which check applies.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the numerous check_* siblings. The agent is left to infer that this is a pre-access gate, but nothing in the text confirms that.

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

Deploy Server