Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AGA-mcp-server

AGA-mcp-server

by attestedintelligence
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

request_claim

Request disclosure of a claim. Automatically substitutes when the request is denied.

Instructions

Request disclosure of a claim. Auto-substitutes if denied.

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": {
      "claim_id": "<claim_id>"
    },
    "name": "request_claim"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoREVEAL_MIN
claim_idYes
requester_idNoanonymous

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.0.1

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Auto-substitutes if denied', which is a key behavior, but fails to explain what 'substitutes' means, whether it's destructive, or any other side effects. No mention of permissions or rate limits.

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?

The description is very concise (two sentences), but it lacks structure and essential information. While it is not verbose, the conciseness comes at the cost of completeness. Every sentence should earn its place, but here they are insufficient.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return value, the meaning of disclosure modes, or the auto-substitution behavior in detail. The tool is for a potentially complex operation, but the description leaves many gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter explanations. It doesn't mention claim_id, mode, or requester_id. The mode enum (PROOF_ONLY, REVEAL_MIN, REVEAL_FULL) is not described. The description fails entirely to add meaning beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Request disclosure of a claim.' The verb 'request disclosure' and resource 'claim' are specific. It also mentions auto-substitution on denial, adding context. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'list_claims', but the purpose is distinct enough.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The tool is for requesting claim disclosure, but no context on when to choose this over other claim-related tools.

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