AGA-mcp-server

delegate_to_subagent

Derive a constrained policy artifact for a sub-agent, ensuring delegated enforcement triggers and measurements remain within parent scope.

Instructions

Derive a constrained policy artifact for a sub-agent. Scope can only diminish, never expand. (NCCoE constrained delegation)

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": {
      "enforcement_triggers": "<enforcement_triggers>",
      "measurement_types": "<measurement_types>",
      "requested_ttl_seconds": "<requested_ttl_seconds>",
      "delegation_purpose": "<delegation_purpose>"
    },
    "name": "delegate_to_subagent"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`measurement_types`	Yes	Subset of parent measurement types
`delegation_purpose`	Yes	Purpose of the delegation
`enforcement_triggers`	Yes	Subset of parent enforcement triggers
`requested_ttl_seconds`	Yes	Requested TTL (will be clamped to parent remaining)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.0.1Jul 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of non-expanding scope, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error behavior.

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?

The description is two sentences, concise and to the point, with no wasted words. However, it could benefit from slightly more structure or context.

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?

Given 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks details on return values, prerequisites, or how this fits with siblings, leaving an agent with insufficient information 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 coverage is 100% and each parameter is described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the general purpose of constrained delegation, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool derives a constrained policy artifact for a sub-agent, with specific scope restrictions. It uses domain-specific terminology (NCCoE constrained delegation) but is not contrasted with siblings like request_claim or attest_subject.

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?

The constraints 'Scope can only diminish, never expand' provide some usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server