Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aureon MCP

Aureon MCP

Official
by buildaureon
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

aureon_list_executions

List recent execution receipts with settlement, on-chain verification, settlement record, explorer URL, and registry reference; optionally filter by objective ID.

Instructions

Recent execution receipts — read settlement, verifiedOnChain, settlementRecord, explorerUrl, registryRef.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "aureon_list_executions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
objectiveIdNoFilter by objective ID (omit for all)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.16

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It gestures at returned fields (settlement, verifiedOnChain, settlementRecord, explorerUrl, registryRef), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about read-only semantics, ordering, pagination/limits, or what 'recent' means in practice.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the field list is compact. It is efficient, though the em-dash field dump reads more like a return-value sketch than a purpose statement.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the operation's scope and return behavior. Instead it leaves ordering, limits, filtering, and read-only status unstated, which is thin for a listing tool in a crowded sibling namespace.

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% for the single optional objectiveId filter, so the schema already explains its meaning. The description adds no filtering detail beyond the schema, 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 phrase 'Recent execution receipts' conveys the resource (execution receipts) but never states the verb explicitly — the agent must infer 'list' from the name. It also fails to distinguish this tool from close siblings like aureon_list_settlements, aureon_get_execution_settlement, and aureon_validate_receipt, which plausibly surface overlapping data.

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 guidance on when to use this versus aureon_list_settlements, aureon_get_execution_settlement, or aureon_validate_receipt, nor any mention of prerequisites or scope. The only hint is the word 'Recent', which is not an explicit condition.

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