agent-passport-system-mcp

Evaluate Action Intent

evaluate_intent

Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks an intent against the Values Floor policy engine, returning a pass/fail verdict for delegation scope and spend limit.

Instructions

[OPERATOR] Evaluate an intent against the Values Floor policy engine. Returns real pass/fail verdict.

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": {
      "intent_id": "<intent_id>",
      "delegation_scope": "<delegation_scope>",
      "delegation_spend_limit": "<delegation_spend_limit>"
    },
    "name": "evaluate_intent"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`intent_id`	Yes	Intent ID from create_intent
`delegation_scope`	Yes	Delegation scope for context
`delegation_spent`	No	Amount already spent
`delegation_spend_limit`	Yes	Delegation spend limit

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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it produces a 'real pass/fail verdict,' hinting at binary output semantics, but says nothing about failure handling, what happens on a fail verdict, or any auth/operator requirements implied by the '[OPERATOR]' tag.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, with zero padding. The cryptic '[OPERATOR]' prefix is the only element that is not self-explanatory.

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?

With no output schema, the description's note that it returns a pass/fail verdict is helpful, but it does not explain the verdict's structure, what a failure entails, or the delegation scope/spend semantics that the evaluation depends on. Adequate but with clear gaps for a policy-evaluation tool.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters (intent_id, delegation_scope, delegation_spent, delegation_spend_limit). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so 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?

States a specific verb (Evaluate) plus the resource (intent) and the target system (Values Floor policy engine), and notes it returns a pass/fail verdict. It is clear on its own, but it does not differentiate itself from the many sibling policy-check tools such as check_tier, check_aggregate_constraints, or check_purpose_permitted.

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 guidance on when to call this versus the numerous other policy/constraint evaluation siblings, nor any prerequisites (e.g. whether create_intent must run first). The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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

Deploy Server