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

agent-passport-system-mcp

by agent-passport-system
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

Resolve Authority Tier

resolve_authority
Read-onlyIdempotent

Computes an agent's effective reputation score and authority tier for a scope, returning tier, autonomy level, spend limit, and effective score.

Instructions

Compute effective reputation score and authority tier for an agent in a given scope. Returns tier name, autonomy level, spend limit, and effective score.

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": {
      "agentId": "<agentId>",
      "principalId": "<principalId>",
      "scope": "<scope>"
    },
    "name": "resolve_authority"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scopeYesScope to check reputation in (e.g. 'code_execution', 'commerce')
agentIdYesAgent ID to check
principalIdYesPrincipal who delegated authority

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). The description goes beyond them by disclosing what the computation returns — tier name, autonomy level, spend limit, effective score — which is meaningful since no output schema exists. It stops short of explaining inputs like how the principal's delegation feeds into the score.

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?

Two tight sentences: the computation is front-loaded and the return shape follows. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only deterministic computation, the description plus 100%-covered schema and absent output schema leaves the agent adequately equipped — the return fields are enumerated in prose. The missing piece is any cue distinguishing this from check_tier or the capability-authority sibling, which the description could have supplied.

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% and each parameter (scope, agentId, principalId) is documented in the schema, including a scope example. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource — 'Compute effective reputation score and authority tier' — for a given agent and scope, which is clear and unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from plausible siblings like check_tier or aps_capability_evaluate_authority, leaving an agent to guess which tier-resolution tool 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. In a tool list containing check_tier and aps_capability_evaluate_authority, the absence of any routing rule is a real gap.

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