Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@agirails/mcp-server

@agirails/mcp-server

Official
by agirails
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussions(1)Admin
JavaScript
Remote

agirails_explain_concept

Read-onlyIdempotent

Explain AGIRAILS concepts including 8-state machine, escrow lifecycle, x402 payments, and more using documentation context.

Instructions

Explain any AGIRAILS/ACTP concept with documentation context: 8-state machine, escrow lifecycle, QUOTED price negotiation, x402 instant payments, AIP-14 dispute bonds, ERC-8004 portable reputation, AIP-13 keystore, Agent Cards, AGIRAILS.md, gasless ERC-4337.

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": {
      "concept": "<concept>"
    },
    "name": "agirails_explain_concept"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
conceptYesConcept to explain: "8-state machine", "escrow", "QUOTED negotiation", "x402", "disputes", "ERC-8004", "AIP-13", "agent cards", "AGIRAILS.md", "gasless ERC-4337", "covenant"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating safe read operation. Description adds no behavioral traits beyond that, but no contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One long sentence with a comma-separated list of concepts. Adequate but not concise; could be organized into bullet points or shorter phrases.

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?

Covers purpose and concepts, but lacks output format details (e.g., returns text or markdown). Given no output schema, description should hint at return structure.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter, listing possible values. Description repeats some values but adds no new meaning or format details beyond schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states it explains AGIRAILS/ACTP concepts with documentation context, listing specific concepts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform actions (e.g., accept, cancel).

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?

The description implies use for explanation, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like agirails_search_docs. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites.

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