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

agent-passport-system-mcp

by agent-passport-system
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

Execute with Context (Deprecated)

execute_with_context
Read-onlyIdempotent

Run a scoped action on a target through an enforcement context that validates delegated scope before allowing API, data, or commerce operations.

Instructions

[deprecated in v3.0.0, use the gateway.aeoess.com REST API] Execute an action through the enforcement context.

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": {
      "action_type": "<action_type>",
      "target": "<target>",
      "scope": "<scope>"
    },
    "name": "execute_with_context"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scopeYesRequired scope for this action (must match a delegated scope)
targetYesTarget of the action (e.g. URL, file path, resource ID)
action_typeYesAction type (e.g. 'api:fetch', 'data:write', 'commerce:checkout')
estimated_spendNoEstimated spend for commerce actions

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

C2.8/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the tool 'executes an action' whose documented action_type values include 'data:write' and 'commerce:checkout' — clearly state-mutating and potentially financial operations. This directly contradicts the read-only claim, and the description adds no compensating detail about what execution actually returns or whether it performs or merely permits the action.

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 compact clauses with the deprecation warning front-loaded before the purpose statement, which is the right ordering for a deprecated tool. Nothing is padded, though the second clause is so terse it borders on uninformative.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the burden of explaining what an execution returns (permit, denial, receipt?) and what 'enforcement context' enforces — it does neither. Combined with the unresolved read-only contradiction and the fact that a required scope must 'match a delegated scope' without any description of that prerequisite, the definition is not complete enough for correct invocation.

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 (action_type, target, scope, estimated_spend) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about scope matching, spend semantics, or parameter interactions, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The verb is identifiable ('Execute an action') but the object is jargon — 'the enforcement context' is never defined, so an agent cannot tell what actually happens or what distinguishes this from siblings like complete_action or gateway_process_tool_call. The deprecation note is useful routing information but does not clarify purpose.

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?

The description explicitly states the tool is deprecated in v3.0.0 and names the replacement (the gateway.aeoess.com REST API), which is clear when-not-to-use guidance. It stops short of a 5 because the alternative is an external REST API rather than a sibling tool, and no condition for legitimately using this tool is given.

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